Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

The Minister was asked—

Certified Herd Scheme

Lorna Fitzsimons: What progress has been made on the adoption of the export certified herd scheme. [28746]

The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Dr. John Cunningham): The Commission presented a proposal for the export certified herd scheme to the Standing Veterinary Committee on 21 January. I expect the committee to vote on the proposal soon. If it is not adopted by the committee, it will be referred to the Agriculture Council for a decision.

Lorna Fitzsimons: I thank my right hon. Friend for his answer. Like many of my colleagues, he may not know that Rochdale has a substantial interest in the issue. I have been lobbied by farmers—I grew up with several farmers—who are proud to be the providers of some of the finest and safest beef in this country and, indeed, the world. They want to know what support the Europear Commission got for the export certified herd scheme, and what my right hon. Friend expects the Standing Veterinary Committee's view to be. They want to know whether we stand a chance this time of getting enough support from the Commission to ensure that they car export their beef, because it is the best beef.

Dr. Cunningham: I certainly agree with my hon Friend that British beef is safe to eat. The important aspect of the Commission decision was that the Commission itself accepted implicitly, in unanimously backing the scheme, that British beef is safe. There are no good reasons for the Standing Veterinary Committee not to reach the same conclusion.

Mr. Walter: To implement the scheme in Great Britain, we need a computerised system. Yesterday in answer to a debate in the House, the Minister of State said that no decisions had yet been taken on charging for the scheme, and that no decisions had been taken or passing on the costs of setting up the scheme—the previous Government made a public spending

commitment not to pass on those costs. Can the Minister reassure farmers that, as in Northern Ireland, there will be no charge for the scheme?

Dr. Cunningham: I can tell the House that I shall be meeting farmers' leaders with my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister later today.

Mrs. Betty Williams: What steps have the Government taken since May 1997 to implement the Florence agreement, and may we be told why the European Union is still refusing to reopen the beef export market?

Dr. Cunningham: We have fulfilled all the terms and conditions placed on us by the Florence agreement and, I repeat, there is now no good scientific or veterinary reason why British beef should not be allowed back into international markets.

Farmers (Suicides)

Mr. Gill: How many farmers have committed suicide in each of the past five years. [28745]

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Elliot Morley): The high rate of farmers committing suicide is of particular concern to the Government, and we are adopting policies to reduce the rate. MAFF is represented on the rural stress information network, the purpose of which is to alleviate rural stress.

Mr. Gill: I thank the Minister for that reply. Is there sufficient realisation in his Department of the severe stress and strain that is placed on farmers by all the bureaucracy that has been implemented as a result of the BSE scare and other happenings in the industry? Given that his Ministry has decided to impose a ban on the sale of bone-in beef, which will cost the industry this year £77 million in recurring costs and £20 million in non-recurring costs, what price does he put on the life of a farmer?

Mr. Morley: Rural stress and suicide rates among farmers are very serious issues. They are connected with many factors—not least isolation. When visiting farmers in Weardale recently, I discussed the support networks that farmers are organising. As I said, the Ministry has been supporting them. I would need to examine the hon. Gentleman's figures on the bone-in beef ban before I could support them, but I should tell him that that ban affects 3 per cent. of the beef market.

Mr. Gill: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Am I in order in pointing out to the Minister that the figures are—

Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is in order doing only one thing—which he is not doing at the moment.

Mr. Edwards: I am sure that my hon. Friend agrees that every suicide in the farming community is a great tragedy. He will understand that there is a crisis in British


farming. I know of farmers in my constituency who feel some despair. What measures are being taken to introduce an early retirement scheme to help farmers?

Mr. Morley: We are discussing that issue with farmers' representatives.

Mr. Tyler: Is the Minister aware of the very considerable number of suicides that appear to be linked to organophosphate poisoning? Is he aware of the work of Dr. Robert Davies, consultant psychiatrist at the Taunton clinic, which demonstrates that the proportion of suicides is completely inexplicable except in terms of the effects of OP poisoning? Is he in a position to give any more information about the Ministry's work in that regard?

Mr. Morley: We are aware of all the research in that area, and of course take the issues seriously. The Ministry has committed £500,000 to a research programme. It is too early for it to have reached conclusions.

Dr. Ladyman: One of the things that farmers in my constituency tell me leads them to despair is the fact that they are told by supermarkets that they must produce goods to very high standards, but find that those same supermarkets stock cheap imports which are not produced to the same high standards. Does the Minister get as cheesed off as I do with the Opposition's hypocrisy, since one of their number, the vice-chairman of the Conservative party, through his day job with the Asda supermarket chain, is in a position to do something practical?

Mr. Morley: There is no doubt that the supermarkets insist on high standards from British producers, and British producers match those high standards. It is therefore not unreasonable to expect big retailers to recognise that there is a responsibility for their meat and food supply.

Beef Imports

Mr. Thompson: If he will make a statement on how much beef by tonnage and value has come into the United Kingdom from outside the EU in 1997.[28747]

The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Jeff Rooker): Provisional figures for United Kingdom imports of fresh, chilled and frozen beef from non-European Community countries from January to the end of November 1997 indicate that some 53,000 tonnes were imported to the approximate value of £135 million.

Mr. Thompson: I thank the Minister for his reply. Is there any truth in the rumour that some of the beef is fed to the armed forces? If that is so, will the Minister contact the Minister for the Armed Forces and advise him that British beef should be fed to British forces? Furthermore, will there be a traceability system so that we can trace where the beef goes and from where it came?

Mr. Rooker: I should imagine that the beef will be covered by the forthcoming beef labelling scheme. Consumption of British beef by the armed forces is much higher under this Government than the previous one.

Mr. Gareth Thomas: Will my hon. Friend confirm that labelling has a part to play in improving confidence

in domestic beef? Will he confirm also that steps will be taken to improve the labelling system so that consumers will be sure that they are consuming quality British beef?

Mr. Rooker: Yes. From April, the beef labelling scheme will come into force. At present it is voluntary. We have encouraged all producers to become accredited. There must be independent certification before the product can be sold as British beef. In the meantime, farmers, supermarket owners and customers could ask whether the beef that they buy has a hygiene assessment score. The only beef to which that system applies is British beef.

Mr. Paice: Will the Minister confirm that hygiene assessment scores do not involve any microbiological testing of the product? I hope that he will take that up in response to a question that I have already tabled.
Will the Minister accept, without bringing in the absurd political points that have been introduced by his hon. Friends, that there are many farmers and consumers who believe that there is much imported meat available in this country that has not been produced to the standards that we require, including standards of hygiene, of microbiology, of abattoir practice and, importantly, of animal welfare? Are not virtually the only checks that are made on entry documentary checks?
Is it not time that the Minister emphasised and accelerated the Government's ability to make proper checks on imports of meat to ensure that the ever-rising standards of British production are matched for farmer and consumer by the ever-increasing volume of meat that is being imported?

Mr. Rooker: Last year we imported about 2 per cent. less non-EC beef than was imported during the previous year. Less non-EC beef has been imported under this Government than under the previous Administration. In other words, there has been a decline. At the same time, there has been more activity in making checks at the ports and raising standards.
No one has ever said that hygiene assessment scores involve testing the meat. It is a process of testing the quality of the abattoir and that of the cutting-plant premises. We are talking of a hygiene score for the premises in which the killing and cutting takes place. It is right that that information is made available to the public.

Mr. Todd: On the question of non-EU products, will my hon. Friend address the World Trade Organisation at the next round of negotiations to ensure that the same high standards that we insist on for our beef products are also insisted on in other states that are seeking to export into the United Kingdom, especially in the areas of animal welfare and environmental care, along with many of the other quality issues which were referred to by the Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for Sout-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice)?

Mr. Rooker: The points that my hon. Friend raises are not ignored by the Government. Even from non-EU countries, there must be conformity with the standards that apply within the European Union—a single market of which we are a part of under legislation introduced by the previous Government. Checks are made in third countries to ensure that their products conform with the standards required by the single market.

Green-top Milk

Mr. Peter Atkinson: What representations he has received about the future of green top milk; and if he will make a statement.[28748]

Mr. Rooker: We have received about 800 responses from a wide range of interested parties. I expect to be receiving more before the close of consultation on 24 February.

Mr. Atkinson: I hope that the Minister will take careful account of all the responses, including those from some of my constituents who have been drinking green-top milk all their lives with no ill effects, and who believe that the decision to drink traditional farm milk should be left to the individual.
If the Minister does ban green-top milk, is he aware that he will face the same angry reaction as the Government did over their ludicrous decision over beef on the bone?

Mr. Rooker: As some of my hon. Friends have said, just up the road from the hon. Gentleman's constituency there are citizens who are not allowed to purchase green-top milk. We are consulting on the issue and this is not the appropriate day on which to make an announcement. We will not make a decision until after the consultation process. We are operating on the precautionary principle. The hon. Gentleman may say that hon. Members have admitted that they were brought up on green-top milk, but some of the bugs that have been discovered in raw milk, such as E. coli 0157 and Campylobacter, were not known about 20 years ago.

Dr. George Turner: Does my hon. Friend share the concern that I felt on reading the documentary evidence that more than half the samples tested had faecal contamination? If less parliamentary language was used to describe the source of the contamination, the public would share my horror that, as some seem to imply, we need to have dead bodies before we act.

Mr. Rooker: My hon. Friend puts it in the same graphic terms that were put to the Government—that we should act only after dead bodies are available. That is not what we normally do, although every hon. Member who has ever campaigned for, say, a zebra crossing to be placed at an accident black spot will have been annoyed at the unwritten message that, until there are five dead bodies and a cartload of limbs, they cannot have a zebra crossing.

National Minimum Wage

Mr. Hammond: What representations he has made to the President of the Board of Trade with regard to the minimum wage. [28749]

Mr. Morley: As is the case with the formulation of Government policies, the national minimum wage has been the subject of internal discussions between Ministers.

Mr. Hammond: Is the Minister aware of the National Farmers Union estimate that a minimum wage,

if introduced at half male median male earnings, would add about £250 million per annum to the costs of agriculture, and that those costs would fall disproportionately on the sectors that employ a large number of casual workers? What studies has he commissioned to assess the impact on agriculture of the minimum wage, and in particular employment in, and survival of, horticultural businesses?

Mr. Morley: The rate for the minimum wage has not yet been set, so the hon. Gentleman's comments are pure speculation. The NFU sided with the Labour party when the previous Government tried to abolish the only minimum wage board left—the agricultural wages board.

Mr. Hanson: Does my hon. Friend agree that the Labour party, the trade unions and the NFU all supported the retention of the agricultural wages board because they recognised that there needed to be a minimum below which wages would not fall, and that, contrary to the assertions of Opposition Members, that is also the policy of the Government?

Mr. Morley: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The agricultural wages board sets a benchmark that goes far beyond the agriculture sector and is important within the whole rural economy. That is why it was supported by rural interests and the Labour party, and was opposed by the Conservative party.

Mr. Livsey: From the latest farm management survey figures for Wales I have calculated that, on the basis of a 40-hour week, farmers earn £2.50 an hour? In his discussions with the President of the Board of Trade, will he take that into consideration, as clearly farmers will not be able to afford to employ anybody.

Mr. Morley: We have already taken into account the pressure on farmers in Wales and, indeed, in other sectors. That is why my hon. Friend the Minister of State recently announced a package of £85 million-worth of extra aid, which is targeted at the most vulnerable groups.

Quarantine

Mr. Canavan: What plans he has to amend the law and regulations regarding quarantine. [28750]

Dr. John Cunningham: The advisory group on quarantine is expected to report by late spring, after which I plan to hold a full public consultation on its report.

Mr. Canavan: Although I agree that the first priority should be to prevent the importation of rabies, will my right hon. Friend confirm that Professor Kennedy's group is giving serious consideration to the option of vaccination, with appropriate documentation and the insertion of a microchip for identification, so that animals with a pet's passport can be brought into this country without the need to spend months in quarantine?

Dr. Cunningham: Yes. I can confirm that vaccination is one of the options that will be considered.

Mr. Soames: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that, provided that he and his Department are satisfied with


the science referred to by the hon. Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan), and provided that the arrangements are satisfactory in this country for monitoring incoming animals, there is no reason whatever that we should not be able to abandon the quarantine arrangements?

Dr. Cunningham: The hon. Gentleman is persuasive, but I shall not pre-empt the outcome of the scientific risk analysis. I can assure him that I believe that the time is right to re-examine the quarantine laws. That is why I have taken this initiative. There will be a full opportunity to consider all the aspects of the report when it is available.

Feedstuffs

Mr. Austin: When he will implement the recommendations of the Lamming committee on animal feedstuffs. [28751]

Mr. Morley: Most recommendations have been acted on since 1992. The principal one, on the establishment of an advisory committee on animal feedstuffs, is only now being implemented by the Government.

Mr. Austin: I welcome the announcement that there is to be an independent advisory committee on animal feedstuffs. It is an old adage that we are what we eat. Does not the Minister find it extraordinary that the previous Government did nothing to implement the recommendations of the Lamming committee in 1992? Is it not good news for the consumer that we now have a force for change in agriculture and in British politics?

Mr. Morley: My hon. Friend is right. It is good news for the consumer and for the producer, as many producers also want to be assured of the quality of their animals' feedstuffs. The committee is a step forward which will be welcome on all sides of the industry.

Food Standards Agency

Mr. Timms: How many representations he has received in response to the Food Standards Agency White Paper. [28753]

Mr. Rooker: Public consultation on the White Paper ends on 16 March. As of yesterday, 52 written formal responses have been made to the Department. My right hon. Friend and I have also met a number of interested organisations to discuss the White Paper.

Mr. Timms: Are not the Government's proposals good news for all those producers and consumers who suffered so grievously from the series of regulatory failures followed by cover-ups which characterised the stewardship of the Conservative party? What assurances can my hon. Friend give on two specific aspects of the proposals—first, on the independence of the agency and, secondly, on public access to its data and conclusions?

Mr. Rooker: The independence of the agency will be enshrined in legislation which will be approved by the House. The commissioners who will govern the agency will be appointed under full Nolan principles, they will not be representative of any vested interest groups and

they will be appointed for their individual expertise. There can be no greater signal that the agency will be open than that it will publish its advice to Ministers.

Mr. Clifton-Brown: Will the Minister confirm that the Food Standards Agency will negotiate on behalf of the Government in Europe and elsewhere? Will he also confirm that the agency will draft secondary legislation for the Ministry of Agriculture?

Mr. Rooker: Yes and yes.

Mr. Sheerman: Does my hon. Friend agree that only an effective Food Standards Agency will put behind us the tragedy for British agriculture that was caused by the former Government, and that the sooner such an effective agency is up and running, the sooner British consumers can be assured of the quality of the food that they eat and producers can be assured of a good market for good produce?

Mr. Rooker: Yes, but British consumers do not have to wait until the agency is up and running. The Government's policy is to make consumer safety and food safety a top priority. That is where the change of policy started in May last year.

Mr. Jack: The Minister may recall that he was supposed to have been in Harrogate on Tuesday afternoon to discuss the Food Standards Agency at the Hortex exhibition, which I opened. Can he explain to the House why, at the last minute, he gave a slap in the face to horticulture by cancelling his attendance at that meeting? Can he further explain why no other Minister was put up to speak in his place and why, if that was not possible, an official was not sent? He disappointed and upset many people who wanted to know about the agency, and showed disdain to the horticulture industry.

Mr. Rooker: I had urgent diary commitments in London.

Mrs. Humble: I was pleased to hear my hon. Friend refer a moment ago to the importance of consumer safety. Does he agree that one of the key tasks for the new Food Standards Agency is to deal with E. coli poisoning so that other parents do not suffer, as two parents in my constituency have, the sad, sorry, unnecessary premature death of a child?

Mr. Rooker: My hon. Friend is right. Maintaining healthy living in this dirty world requires constant vigilance of some of the bugs that are around, especially those that were not around or known in this country two decades ago.

Farm Incomes

Mr. Webb: What assessment he has made of trends in farming incomes over the next three years. [28754]

Mr. Morley: It is difficult to predict the trend in farm incomes because of the many factors involved. I am kept informed by my officials on how specific market developments could impact on farm incomes.

Mr. Webb: Does the Minister accept that independent forecasts, such as those by Barclays bank, suggest a


further significant fall in farming incomes next year? Farmers in my constituency have overdrafts that would make my eyes water. Does he accept that they cannot wait two years for an upturn, and does he agree that the crisis in farming incomes needs to be tackled urgently?

Mr. Morley: There is no doubt that this is a difficult year for farming incomes, although the hon. Gentleman may have misinterpreted the report slightly: Barclays suggests a downturn in 1998 and an upturn in 1999.

Mr. Pike: Does my hon. Friend accept that many hill farmers, particularly in the Pennines and similar areas, already farm on a non-viable basis and that, if something does not happen to give them a better return and standard of living, they will get out of farming?

Mr. Morley: Yes, I accept that. It is one reason why we are discussing the idea of early retirement with farmers' representatives and considering schemes such as hill livestock compensatory allowance. Hill farmers have always been in the lowest quartile of income. Perhaps the time has come to look at the support mechanisms as part of the restructuring of the CAP and the year 2000 proposals.

Mr. Curry: How much has been taken out of farm incomes by the rise in interest rates since last May, and how much more would be taken out by a further rise, as canvassed by the Governor of the Bank of England?

Mr. Morley: A rise in interest rates would affect farmers in the same way as any other business.

Mr. Flynn: The Government are to be congratulated on their courage in dealing with the extremely difficult and painful, albeit inevitable, changes that have taken place in the farming industry. Could farmers hope for a more secure future in the long term if they were to change farming practices and carry out more organic farming, or move into areas for which there will be a secure market in the future, such as the cultivation of flax?

Mr. Morley: Farmers are certainly going through a period of change, not least because of the pressures on the CAP. There are tremendous premiums for organic products, but nearly 70 per cent. of the organic market is taken by imports. We are doing our best to encourage farmers to convert to organic methods and take the opportunity of that market. We shall announce further proposals in the very near future.

Mr. Beggs: Does the Minister agree that, as soon as the ban on the export of beef from the United Kingdom comes about, farming incomes will start to increase again? May I take this opportunity to thank the Minister of State for attending the animal health computer presentation by the Northern Ireland Department of Agriculture today, and urge other hon. Members to attend the presentation at 4 pm in Room 21 so that their regions can benefit from the facilities that we have in Northern Ireland?

Mr. Morley: The computerised scheme in Northern Ireland is excellent and has helped in terms of the Commission's recommendation that the ban should be lifted in Northern Ireland. We are extending such a

scheme, through the cattle passport scheme, throughout the country. It is a great shame that the previous Government did not implement that scheme in 1989 when they were pressed to do so by those on the Labour Front Bench.

Mr. Jack: The Minister will understand that the agrimonetary regime has a profound effect on farmers' incomes. A document produced by Mr. Lebrecht, a senior official in MAFF, has come into my possession. It waxes lyrical about the stability of the current arrangements and the contribution to farm incomes, and talks about the generous compensation schemes available to farmers in the context of post-euro agrimonetary arrangements.
If the Minister's officials feel so enthusiastic about the arrangements to help farmers, why does he not feel the same?

Mr. Morley: It is a shame that the shadow Minister did not see a document that I have seen, which points out that in 1995 the then Conservative Government voted against the agrimonetary scheme—the very scheme that the Conservatives are now pressing us to implement.

EU Banana Regime

Ms Abbott: If he will visit the World Trade Organisation in Geneva to discuss the European Union's banana regime; and if he will make a statement.[28755]

Dr. John Cunningham: Negotiation in the WTO is a matter for the European Commission. I have made clear my determination to secure an outcome that both conforms to WTO rules and honours our long-standing commitments to Caribbean producers.

Ms Abbott: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the WTO ruling on the banana regime caused consternation and upset throughout the Caribbean? Many eastern Caribbean countries are wholly dependent on banana exports for their foreign exchange. The ruling also has serious social implications, because the banana industry is still a big employer in Jamaica and the eastern Caribbean. Can my right hon. Friend assure me that, during its presidency of the European Union, the United Kingdom will do all that it can to bring about an outcome that will preserve the living standards and social structures of the eastern Caribbean?

Dr. Cunningham: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The Windward Islands, Belize and some other Caribbean islands depend hugely on banana production. Only this week, at the Agriculture Council in Brussels, we discussed progress on a new proposal to replace the one that was ruled out by the WTO decision—which, like my hon. Friend, I found very disappointing. We are determined to secure a new agreement for Caribbean banana producers.

Sir Peter Tapsell: Does the Minister recall that, at the time when Britain signed the treaty of Rome, the most solemn undertakings were given to our friends in the Caribbean—with whom we have historic links stretching over centuries—that their banana exports, on which their


whole lives depend, would be protected? Must those undertakings be subordinated to the German wish to eat large numbers of continental American bananas?

Dr. Cunningham: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. We have historic obligations to those tiny Caribbean democracies, and the Government are determined to fulfil our obligations, for all the reasons that he gave. I cannot see for the life of me why the complainants to the WTO made such a fuss. The tiny Caribbean countries produce only about 8 per cent. of the European banana market.

Beef Ban

Mr. Loughton: How many prosecutions have taken place with regard to the sale of beef on the bone to the final consumer. [28756]

Mr. Rooker: None so far, but we are aware that two are pending, and that warnings about non-compliance have been given by local authorities.

Mr. Loughton: I am sure that the House is glad that the Minister has dragged himself away from the health hazards of the Smoking Room to reply to questions.
The Minister will know as well as me that beef on the bone is still widely available in this country, given the right nudge or wink. Does he agree that the complete absence of any prosecutions to date demonstrates that the ban is unmanageable, unfair and unenforceable?

Mr. Rooker: The issue of prosecution is a matter for the independent prosecuting authorities. As hon. Members will have read in today's Evening Standard, someone is to be summoned before the magistrates in Rother, whose district council is run by a coalition between Liberal Democrats and Tories.

Mr. Martyn Jones: Is it not the case that there would be no need for prosecutions, or for the regulations banning beef on the bone, if the Tories had acted quickly when in government to quell the BSE crisis instead of dragging their feet?

Mr. Rooker: Yes. It is a matter of public health and of taking precautions. We can say as a Government that we are not allowing BSE infectivity into the food chain, and we will maintain that position.

Mr. Charles Kennedy: Will the Minister acknowledge that, in a democratic society, prosecution is always more difficult when there is no basic public consent to enthusiasm for or acceptance of the law itself? In that context, did he see the Teletext poll last weekend, when 94 per cent. of respondents expressed no confidence in or support for the Government's measures?
If the course of prosecution is so clear, why is it that the first test case in Scotland, in Selkirk sheriff court next month, concerns a beef-on-the-bone case where there was no commercial transaction, the one to which he has just referred concerns a case where there was a commercial transaction, and his recent written answer said that there could be no prosecution against a farmer who slaughters beef on his farm and consumes it? If the element in the

ban is risk, surely the ban should be comprehensive and there should not be three different categories in three different parts of the country.

Mr. Rooker: As most hon. Members appreciate, different rules apply to private kills, but the administration of justice in this country is not conducted by opinion polls.

Mr. Corbett: May I tell the Minister that I have not had a single complaint about the temporary non-availability of T-bone steaks and oxtails in my constituency, I suspect because of their relatively high price? Does he agree that it is offensive for Opposition Members whose hands are dirty from BSE and CJD to take risks with public health over this temporary ban?

Mr. Rooker: I agree entirely with the honest, fair and robust way in which my hon. Friend has put his point.

Mr. Alasdair Morgan: How many prosecutions have taken place or are pending in relation to breaches of the import regulations that were introduced on 1 January?

Mr. Rooker: I am not able to answer that now without notice.

Mr. Alan W. Williams: Did the Minister hear the item on this morning's "Today" programme, where a butcher who had been selling beef on the bone, when tipped off by the environmental health department that it was about to call on him, and when warned that there could be a fine of anything up to £20,000, decided immediately to stop selling beef on the bone? He was willing to be interviewed to that effect on that programme. Is that not what our local authorities throughout the country should be doing, so that we can guarantee all consumers that all possible steps have been taken to ensure that our beef is the safest in the world?

Mr. Rooker: My hon. Friend is right, but I am not surprised that the butcher concerned was willing to be interviewed on the "Today" programme: it is clear that he is a publicity seeker.

Mr. Gibb: If he will issue guidance to individuals who have beef on the bone in their freezers, bought for their own consumption, before 16 December 1997. [28757]

Mr. Rooker: Such guidance was included in the question-and-answer material provided on the MAFF internet BSE site immediately after the announcement by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food about the Spongiform Encephalopathy Advisory Committee advice on dorsal root ganglia on 3 December 1997.

Mr. Gibb: Which advice is correct? Is it the advice on the internet that it is up to the consumer to decide whether to consume beef in deep freeze, or is it the advice given on television on Sunday by the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food that such consumption would represent an unnecessary risk?

Mr. Rooker: People who already had frozen T-bones or ribs of beef in their freezers at home should, frankly,


be treated as adults. [Interruption.] Those citizens owned that beef; it was in their home. We gave them the advice. They already owned that beef. It was not a question of making a commercial transaction—that had already been done.

Mr. Dawson: Has the Minister ever pondered whether the Opposition parties are really serious about getting the beef ban lifted, as they are obviously not willing to take the vital steps that are necessary to assure the world of the safety and quality of British beef?

Mr. Rooker: The plain fact is that the Opposition are asking us knowingly to allow, for the first time, BSE infectivity into the food chain. We will not do it now, and we will not do it in future.

Brogdale Trust

14. Mr. Rowe: What representations he has received about the future of the Brogdale Trust; and if he will make a statement. [28758]

Mr. Morley: In recent months, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food officials have had a number of discussions with Brogdale horticultural trust and its representatives about their proposed sale of the Brogdale site. The Ministry's interest is in the national fruit collection at Brogdale, which is located on land that we lease from the trust.

Mr. Rowe: Does the Minister agree that one of the difficulties facing the trust is MAFF's requirement for a sizeable pay-back if the land is sold? Can he assure the House that that enormously valuable collection will not be put at risk by unreasonable demands by his Department?

Mr. Morley: The national fruit collection is obviously of national importance and consists of more than 4,000 top fruit trees. Our priority is to ensure its existence and the lease arrangements, to which the hon. Gentleman refers, are part of the guarantee.

BSE

Mr. Whittingdale: What progress has been made in eradicating BSE from the United Kingdom herd; and if he will make a statement.[28759]

Dr. John Cunningham: As a result of the control measures already in place, the BSE epidemic is forecast to be close to extinction by the year 2001. That forecast was reiterated recently by Professor Sir John Pattison, chairman of the Spongiform Encephalopathy Advisory Committee, in his address to the annual meeting of the National Farmers Union.

Mr. Whittingdale: Can the Minister confirm that the requirements that were agreed at Florence for the lifting of the beef export ban have been met? In view of that, and in the light of the evidence that he has just given to the House that the measures are succeeding, what is he doing to get the ban lifted not just from Northern Ireland but from the United Kingdom as a whole?

Dr. Cunningham: I responded to the House on an earlier occasion on this issue. Two schemes for the lifting

of the ban are being considered by the Commission in Brussels. The first of those, which is the export certified herd scheme, was submitted by the previous Administration. That was unanimously approved by the Commission and awaits a decision by the standing veterinary committee. As I said earlier, I cannot see any good reason why that committee should not reach the same conclusion as the Commission on that scheme.
The date-based export scheme, which will cover all animals, will be universal, and the hon. Gentleman is right to say that we need such a scheme. It was submitted by me in October, and has so far received favourable responses, but is being further considered. I assure the hon. Gentleman and the House that we are doing everything possible. Literally on a weekly basis, we are making representations in Brussels, as I did again earlier this week, to ensure that progress on both those schemes is as good as it can possibly be.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

The Attorney-Ge.neral was asked—

Crown Prosecution Service

Mr. Gareth Thomas: When he expects to receive the Glidewell report on the future of the Crown Prosecution Service.[28775]

The Attorney-General (Mr. John Morris): I expect to receive the report in March.

Mr. Thomas: I am grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend for that concise response. Does he agree that the move towards a more localised and less bureaucratic system of prosecution is long overdue?

The Attorney-General: Yes, and that is why we have already decided to reorganise the Crown Prosecution Service into 42 areas. We wish to continue with that and to improve liaison between the police and the CPS. The broad concept is of a localised, national service with as much devolution as practicable to each locality.

31. Mr. Baker: What progress he is making with his review of the Crown Prosecution Service. [28776]

The Attorney-General: I refer the hon. Gentleman to my answer a few moments ago to my hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd West (Mr. Thomas).

Mr. Baker: I recently visited the CPS office in Eastbourne which serves my constituency, and was surprised by the tight financial constraints under which it operates. Is that why a whole class of minor offences such as vandalism and so on are apparently not being pursued for prosecution? My constituents are worried about the fact that minor crimes do not result in prosecutions. Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman consider that in his review?

The Attorney-General: I am very pleased that the hon. Gentleman visited the Eastbourne office on 8 February. He raised a number of issues and there was a fruitful discussion.
The hon. Gentleman asks about minor offences. Sir Iain Glidewell will consider that issue as part of his review of the CPS. I will need to consider the findings of that review and any implications that his recommendations may have for the exercise of prosecutable functions.

Mr. Cranston: May I ask my right hon. and learned Friend about one aspect of the Glidewell inquiry—the role of child witnesses? Is the inquiry addressing that important issue, particularly the way in which the Crown Prosecution Service handles child witnesses?

The Attorney-General: Before I answer my hon. Friend's question, I must congratulate him on being elevated to a bencher of my own Inn.
I can only speak for the Crown Prosecution Service. I am pleased to say that the CPS published a review of the subject on 28 January, which considered cases involving child witnesses. It found good-quality advice and review, improved processing times, increased use of transfer proceedings to ensure the swift progression of cases, a good working relationship between agencies and motivated and committed staff. It also identified some areas for improvement and the CPS will work to bring that about.
I am reasonably confident that that comes well within the purview of the Glidewell review. I am sure that those carrying out the review will share my hon. Friend's concern and the concern that I feel, having appeared in some such cases. My experience is that the system does its best. There may be room for improvement to ensure that vulnerable witnesses are protected.

Sir Nicholas Lyell: Since the Attorney-General has linked the two questions, would it be fair to assume that he is not making any progress with his review of the Crown Prosecution Service pending delivery of Sir Iain Glidewell's report? Can he tell the House, pending receipt of that report, what the 42 Crown prosecutors that he appointed for each area last May, are doing? On a specific matter, will he bring the House up to date about the steps he is taking to implement the Government's policy on fasttracking for cases of young offenders?

The Attorney-General: As the right hon. and learned Gentleman knows, the decision was taken fairly soon after the Government took office to set up the 42 areas. It had been hoped to make progress with formal appointments by the end of the year. Sir Iain Glidewell indicated during the autumn that, such was the nature of his inquiry, he thought it would be wrong to go ahead with appointments at that stage before his full report had been published. He was most anxious in his interim discussions to ensure that there were persons of the right calibre to carry the kind of local decisions that he regarded as important to devolve from headquarters. That is why that happened. In the meantime, those units are working in close liaison with the police areas. I hope that we will be able to make progress during the year and that there will be further progress after the publication of the Glidewell report.

Sir Nicholas Lyell: Will the Attorney-General answer the second part of my question about fasttracking for young offenders?

The Attorney-General: I am sorry about that. There were a number of points in the right hon. and learned Gentleman's question.
On fasttracking, we have adopted in substance the Narey report and many of the proposals are in the Crime and Disorder Bill, which I am sure that the right hon. and learned Gentleman has been burning the midnight oil while studying. That will be a major factor in ensuring the speedier appearance before our courts of persons generally and youngsters in particular. There have been innovations in many parts of the country where the time taken to bring young offenders to court has been substantially shortened during the past few months.

Mr. Sheerman: Will my right hon. and learned Friend ensure that, when we have a Crown Prosecution Service that is closer to the community, it will stop prosecuting and criminalising children accused of prostitution? Those under the age of consent are brought before the law and sentenced, giving them a criminal record when they are still children, while the pimps who run them and the punters who hire their services are not prosecuted. When will my right hon. and learned Friend stop the nonsense of prosecuting children and criminalising them when they are not even old enough to give assent to sex?

The Attorney-General: I am aware of my hon. Friend's concern. Individual decisions on prosecuting must be taken by the Crown Prosecution Service. The responsibility of the CPS is to consider the evidential test—whether the evidence is there—and to examine with great care in each case the public interest test on whether a prosecution should be continued. If my hon. Friend has a particular case to bring to my attention, I shall ensure that the CPS is made aware of it.

Mr. Burnett: What plans he has to increase the number of lawyers in the Crown Prosecution Service. [28777]

The Attorney-General: I have asked Sir Iain Glidewell to examine the organisation and structure of the CPS and to make recommendations that take account of the need to operate within existing provision. He will no doubt consider whether a redistribution of resources is necessary.

Mr. Burnett: In the light of evidence recently given by the Director of Public Prosecutions to the Public Accounts Committee that many barristers return briefs to the CPS at the last minute, at the outset of the trial, causing chaos to the criminal justice system, will the Attorney-General or the DPP review the policy on the appointment of barristers to do Crown work? If so, when will that review be completed and published?

The Attorney-General: The hon. Gentleman has rightly alerted the House to a matter that is causing concern to the CPS. Mechanisms were set up in 1996. Since then, because of continued dissatisfaction, there has been an agreement with the Bar that there should be a monitoring service to examine the situation in each set of chambers, month by month. That came into effect on 2 February this year. Every six months there will be discussions between branches and the heads of chambers to see what can be done about the late return of briefs.
As the hon. Gentleman well knows, the Bar and solicitors are frequently at the mercy of the timetabling of the courts. One cannot anticipate with any precision, to


put it mildly, when the case in front will finish. Those are some of the problems. Having said that, no doubt there is considerable room for improvement.

Mr. Kidney: Before the CPS considers taking on more lawyers, should we not examine how to make best use of the lawyers that it already has? Could we not do that by rationalising the rights of audience? Does my right hon. and learned Friend really support a situation in which briefs go out to private barristers, often to be returned very late, while there are solicitors in the CPS with limited rights of audience in the Crown court and barristers with none?

The Attorney-General: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that question. It is essential that the rights of audience be resolved. I remind the House that my right hon. and noble Friend the Lord Chancellor is committed to a full examination of the rights of audience. I hope that there will be some expedition on that.

Mr. Hawkins: Will the Attorney-General bear in mind the fact that the work load of many Crown Prosecution Service lawyers is already very heavy? Last Friday, I visited the Guildford headquarters of the south-east branch of the CPS and spoke to the chief crown prosecutor there, Christopher Nicholls, who said that, certainly in Surrey, Sussex, Kent and Hampshire, CPS lawyers were already fully committed. I also spoke to several CPS lawyers when they came back from court late that afternoon, and it was clear that their work load was extremely heavy.
Will the Attorney-General encourage Sir Iain Glidewell to consider their work load in his report and in particular the problem caused by the routing of cases? Will he liaise with his colleagues in the Lord Chancellor's Department to ensure that cases from Surrey are not transferred on a regular basis to the Old Bailey?

The Attorney-General: I will ensure that the Lord Chancellor is made aware of the last part of the hon. Gentleman's question. As for the first part of his question, having been a practitioner up to 1 May, I am conscious of the great pressures on CPS lawyers and of how hard

they work. The problem is in ensuring that a distinction can be made between their managerial and their legal functions. It is one matter that Sir Iain Glidewell will be examining closely. It will certainly be within his terms of reference to consider the impression that too much lawyers' time is taken up in management. If lawyers could be freed from that, they would have more time better to do their work in the courts.

Age of Consent

Dr. Harris: What guidance he has issued on prosecutions under the age of consent legislation for homosexual males; and if he will make a statement.[28778]

The Attorney-General: The guidance issued to all Crown prosecutors is that contained in the code for Crown prosecutors issued under section 10 of the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985, which is applied to all cases.

Dr. Harris: I am grateful to the Attorney-General for that answer. Does he accept that, as indicated by the number of signatories from all parts of the House to early-day motion 717, there is widespread concern about the continuing prosecution of people under the age of consent legislation, domestic legislation which the Government have accepted in the European courts needs to come before Parliament again urgently? In the light of the sentencing tomorrow of the Bolton Seven, will he consider offering specific guidance to the CPS on how we can prevent people's lives being ruined in the interim, until the House has an opportunity to pronounce its view on this outdated legislation?

The Attorney-General: The matter of the Bolton Seven is sub judice, and it would be wrong for me to comment on it. As for the anticipation of any possible change to the legislation, it is not for me to issue guidance on that. The CPS has to operate within and take account of each case on its merits and according to the usual criteria. It cannot anticipate any change in the legislation. As I understand it, the Government are committed to a free vote on that matter in due course following the Strasbourg decision, but one cannot expect the CPS to operate other than in accordance with the law as it stands today.

Business of the House

Mrs. Gillian Shephard: May I ask the Leader of the House to make a statement on the business for next week?

The President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mrs. Ann Taylor): The business for next week will be as follows:

MONDAY 23 FEBRUARY—Consideration in Committee of the Scotland Bill (Fifth Day).
TUESDAY 24 FEBRUARY—Consideration in Committee of the European Parliamentary Elections Bill (First Day).
WEDNESDAY 25 FEBRUARY—Until 2 pm, there will be debates on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
Consideration in Committee of the Government of Wales Bill (Sixth Day).
THURSDAY 26 FEBRUARY—Consideration in Committee of the European Parliamentary Elections Bill (Second Day).
FRIDAY 27 FEBRUARY—Debate on the Government's priorities for women, on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
The provisional business for the following week is as follows:
MONDAY 2 MARCH—Completion of consideration in Committee of the Government of Wales Bill.
TUESDAY 3 MARCH—Opposition day [8th allotted day]. There will be a debate or debates on an Opposition motion—subject or subjects to be announced.
WEDNESDAY 4 MARCH—Until 2 pm, there will be debates on the motion for the Adjournment of the House.
Consideration in Committee of the Scotland Bill (Sixth Day).
THURSDAY 5 MARCH—Remaining stages of the European Parliamentary Elections Bill.
FRIDAY 6 MARCH—Private Members' Bills.

Mrs. Shephard: May I thank the Leader of the House for that reply and for continuing to give the House two weeks' business where she can, which is helpful? She will recall that I have asked several times for a debate on the national health service in Government time. I say "Government time" because the only debate on the NHS in the life of this Parliament has been in Opposition time. With today's waiting list figures exposing the Government's pre-election promises on the health service as a deception of the British people, we all see why the Government have refused further exposure of their failure in the House. As the Secretary of State for Health has admitted his embarrassment about the figures, should we not expect a debate in the interests of open government?
Last week, I asked the right hon. Lady whether she would ensure that before the costly launch by the Prime Minister and the Minister for domes of the proposed content of the millennium dome—planned, I think, for next Tuesday—there would be a statement to the House. In reply to a subsequent point of order, Madam Speaker, you gave your view on the need for the House to be informed of policy developments before the media and outside bodies. Those of us who heard you express your

view were left in doubt about it. Will the right hon. Lady reassure the House that there will be such a statement before Tuesday?
Will the right hon. Lady arrange for a full debate on the cost to the taxpayer of the Lord Chancellor? She will have noticed that there is disquiet among Labour Members about the £650,000 that, it has emerged, is to be spent on refurbishing his accommodation. He may, as a spokesman for the Prime Minister said, have given up a very nice house in north London, but that surely should not be advanced as a justification for the taxpayer to give the self-styled Cardinal Wolsey an even nicer one near the river; we might call it Hampton Court.
Before she seeks to dismiss the question as trivial, as all Government spokesmen are programmed to do by pager, I remind the right hon. Lady that the Lord Chancellor's opinion of himself is anything but trivial. It is becoming a serious matter that his actions have made his functions and office into a national joke. I think that both Government and Opposition Members regard that with some concern.
Can the right hon. Lady explain the implications for the passage of the National Lottery Bill of delays to it in the other place? Can she assure us that its Committee stage in this House will not be guillotined? I realise that that may cause her some difficulty because the delay occurred only today. She may not be able to give us an assurance today, but I flag the matter up.
Given the strong encouragement that the Government are giving the Local Government (Experimental Arrangements) Bill, a private Member's Bill in another place, will the right hon. Lady say how they propose to handle it when it gets to this House?
Some weeks ago, the right hon. Lady was able to give an idea of her thinking on the dates of the Easter recess. That was very helpful and welcomed by all hon. Members who wished to be able to plan ahead. I see from this week's notes, the blue pages, in The House Magazine that her early thinking seems to have been firmly translated into a start date for the Easter recess. I understand her difficulties, but I wonder whether The House Magazine knows something that we all should.

Mrs. Taylor: I am grateful to the right hon. Lady for acknowledging that we are still able to give two weeks of business. As Bills progress this Session, it may become more difficult to stick to the second week with any certainty because, on some occasions, we anticipate the progress of legislation, and there may be variations. However, we will endeavour to give two weeks whenever possible.
The right hon. Lady asked again about the need for a health debate, and I remind her that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health has come to the House on seven occasions for major statements, when he has been questioned on health matters. Of course, it is Health Question Time on Tuesday. My right hon. Friend made it clear when he was first appointed that the Government's most immediate priority was to prevent a winter crisis such as we had last year. The extra money that we have put into the health service has been used to good effect to ensure that, this winter, we have not seen the appalling picture of so many people on hospital trolleys that we saw under the previous Government, who neglected the health service for so long.
The right hon. Lady asked about a statement on the contents of the dome. I cannot guarantee such a statement. However, my hon. Friend the Minister without Portfolio intends to ensure that the House is informed first about the announcements to be made next week. He has answered a written question this week, pointing out that he will be guided by the relevant section of the ministerial code.
As for the Lord Chancellor, I really think that Conservative Members should by now have been able to find something more significant to go at than the cost of that refurbishment—an issue for which the House has no responsibility whatsoever. The right hon. Lady said that we are programmed by pagers to give the right answers, but I have noticed an increasing number of pagers on the Opposition side of the House, so Conservative central office must now be programming people by pager to raise exactly the same concern. I am sure that my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor will be touched by her concern for his reputation.
As to progress with the National Lottery Bill, the right hon. Lady is right to say that I cannot answer now, but I will look into that. The Local Government (Experimental Arrangements) Bill to which she referred will be treated the same as any other private Member's Bill. As to the Easter recess, I, too, should read The House Magazine, because, at this stage, I have nothing to add to what I said earlier.

Mrs. Gwyneth Duwoody: Will my right hon. Friend find time next week for a debate on various National Audit Office reports about the cost of the sale of various state assets by the previous Government? It would be useful if the taxpayer could be told exactly how much was wasted in the sale of Army houses and if we were able to explore carefully the cost of the sale of Her Majesty's Stationery Office at way below what it was worth. Finally, what of the contracts that London and Continental Railways entered into, which the taxpayer will have to carry for some considerable time to come? Would it not be helpful for the House to have the total cost of the previous Government spelled out in clear detail?

Mrs. Taylor: My hon. Friend makes a powerful case and gives but three of the long list of examples that she could have given had we been in a position to have a debate and had time been available. I will look into the issue. The Modernisation Committee is considering our problem with discussing such issues. In due course, I hope that we may be able to make some recommendations to the House.

Mr. Paul Tyler: In contrast to the jokes from the Conservative Front-Bench spokesman, may I put two serious matters to the Leader of the House? First, on Iraq, the whole House appreciated the opportunity to have a debate on a substantive motion in a full House; it was a good debate as a result. If the situation changes and, in particular, if the Secretary-General of the United Nations comes back from Baghdad with a substantial change in the situation, whether good or bad, can the right hon. Lady undertake that there will not merely be a full statement, but a full debate so that the House can understand the situation that may have developed?
Secondly, the Leader of the House may have witnessed the considerable support on both sides of the House for the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park (Dr. Tonge) at Prime Minister's Question Time yesterday about the European Union code of conduct for arms sales.
Hon. Members on both sides are determined that there should not be a repeat of the arms for Iraq scandal. The Government have given some undertakings in that regard. Can we be sure that the draft in circulation, which has been discussed at a European Union meeting this week, will fully meet the concerns of all hon. Members in the light of the Scott report? I hope that the right hon. Lady will recognise that there is all-party concern on this matter. The last thing we want is to find British service people again facing British arms when they are undertaking responsibilities on behalf of this nation.

Mrs. Taylor: On the hon. Gentleman's second question, I am aware of the concerns and the points that have been raised. The Government are still looking at the issue. We may want to consult further, and there may be a White Paper—the House will be kept informed.
The hon. Gentleman asked me about the situation in Iraq and what will happen if there are developments that should be reported to the House. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has made it clear that he wants to keep the House as fully informed as possible. As the hon. Gentleman said, the debate was important. We shall keep under review the possibility of any future debates, because we are very conscious of the need to keep the House fully informed and to test the opinion of hon. Members.

Mr. Jim Marshall: May I press my right hon. Friend further on Iraq? She knows, as the House knows, that we had a good debate earlier this week, but I hope that she will accept that the Government should not regard that as the final word on the views of the House on further attacks on Iraq. I hope that she will bear in mind the points that the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) made. If there is significant change and the situation improves or deteriorates, will she ensure that the Government allow an urgent debate? I do not want Britain to be involved in an attack on Iraq—I am sure that many Labour Members share my view—until the House has made a firm decision.

Mrs. Taylor: I think that we all hope that things will not come to that; we are all watching developments extremely carefully. As I said to the hon. Member for North Cornwall, we are very conscious of our responsibilities to the House. The situation is changing, and we cannot be sure of the time scale of any developments, but the Government have so far shown that they want to keep the House informed and to consult it whenever possible.

Mr. Peter Brooke: Pursuant to a question asked by my right hon. Friend the Member for South-West Norfolk (Mrs. Shephard), if patients are confronted by a choice between remaining in their own home in pain waiting for an operation of uncertain date, and being in a hospital, albeit on a trolley, where people are trying to help them, does the Leader of the House believe that they would automatically opt for the former?

Mrs. Taylor: I really think that the problems are far more serious than the right hon. Gentleman acknowledges. He should remember the crisis in the


health service last winter; Labour Members certainly do. The steps that we have taken to avoid such a crisis this year have been very important.

Mr. Jim Cousins: Does my right hon. Friend recollect that I have drawn to her attention the fact that the Standing Orders of the House contain provision for a Committee of the English regions? It last met on 16 July 1978, but it is entirely within the Government's power to ask it to meet at any time. Has she considered the matter? Is it under review?

Mrs. Taylor: My hon. Friend has spoken to me about that matter. So far, I have not detected a consensus in the House for a move in that direction.

Mr. John Wilkinson: The Leader of the House will remember that, 10 months ago, Labour spokesmen committed a Labour Government to urgent modernisation of the London underground. Since then, nothing has happened, except that fares have gone up and the situation has worsened to such an extent that, on 27 January, we had a half-day debate on the matter. Will the right hon. Lady ensure that the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions comes to the House to say exactly what Her Majesty Government's plans are, or will the people of London have to wait until 2000, when the Greater London authority is convened and appoints a board of London Transport to do something about the matter?

Mrs. Taylor: My right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister is actively looking at ways to alleviate the problems caused by the legacy that we inherited from the previous Administration. He will keep the House informed of any proposals he has to make, but I cannot promise a debate in the near future.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Is the Leader of the House aware that if she decided to arrange a debate or statement on the expenditure on the Lord Chancellor's apartment, it might well be revealed that, as I found out this week, the Committee that is making the decision to spend all the money is in fact a Committee in another place that is dominated by the Tories? I find it odd that the right hon. Member for South-West Norfolk (Mrs. Shephard) comes to the House every Thursday, mouthing about the subject, when it is her friends down the other end who are taking the decision. That leaves me with only one thing to say: let's abolish the Lords.

Mrs. Taylor: My hon. Friend has made some significant points and, as I said earlier, the matter of the refurbishment of the Lord Chancellor's accommodation is not a matter for this House.

Mr. Andrew Stunell: May I draw the attention of the Leader of the House to the difficulties created by the extended waiting lists? May I particularly draw her attention to the situation of a constituent of mine, who is facing the fourth consecutive monthly delay in vital heart surgery? May I urge her to bring the Secretary

of State for Health to the House to explain not only what has happened, but what is going to happen to put that situation right?

Mrs. Taylor: I have every sympathy with the constituent who has been waiting in that way, but the hon. Gentleman will acknowledge that it would have been a serious situation if the record number of emergencies that have had to be treated this winter had been ignored. That would have been far more difficult for him and his constituents. I do not have to bring my right hon. Friend to the House to defend that policy, as he will be answering questions on Tuesday.

Mr. Tom Levitt: Has my right hon. Friend had the opportunity to glance at early-day motion 761?
[That this House notes that a number of boys under 13 years old were recently called to give evidence in court as victims of sexual abuse, that over a year had elapsed between the offences and the court appearances, a time of great distress and trauma for the victims and their families and that during this time normal family relationships were effectively suspended because of the need for adults to be seen to be exerting no influence on the nature or presentation of evidence by their sons; is concerned that in cases like this, especially if they go to appeal, children may be subjected to many days of re-living their abuse in court when what they most need is a period of counselling, rest and recovery; and calls for early reforms in the treatment of young and vulnerable witnesses so as to minimise the trauma of court and avoid the perception that the legal process is more of a punishment for some victims of crime than for some perpetrators.]
Is there a possibility of arranging a debate on the treatment of vulnerable victims? I am particularly concerned about three of my constituents, all boys aged under 12, who waited for 15 months between the time at which they were victims of sexual abuse and the case coming to court. The court sittings were traumatic for them, and their family was denied the possibility of counselling and rebuilding the family during that time. We must bring that situation to an end and give dignity to all victims of crime. Is there a possibility of a debate on that issue in the near future?

Mrs. Taylor: I am sure that the whole House will have sympathy with my hon. Friend's point. We are determined to ensure that children are able to give evidence with the minimum of distress and my hon. Friend may know that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is looking at the way in which vulnerable or intimidated witnesses can get assistance. I do not think that a debate is possible at the moment, but perhaps my hon. Friend will make the Home Secretary aware of his concerns. I shall also draw them to my right hon. Friend's attention.

Mr. Nicholas Soames: Will the Leader of the House please consider in whichever Committee is appropriate setting a limit on the length of time granted to Government Departments when they issue holding answers to written questions? Does she agree that it is an impertinence to the House for Departments to abuse holding answers? That is happening far too often, and I hope that she will look into it. Secondly, will she, in the interest of good manners in her Government, ensure that


Ministers sign correspondence between themselves and Members of Parliament writing on behalf of their constituents? Some Ministers are exemplary in doing it, but others are lamentable, and it is only good manners that prevent me from naming the lady who is the worst.

Mrs. Taylor: The hon. Gentleman has raised issues which are important, but which can be abused both by the people who are asking questions and by those who are trying to delay answers. Holding answers play an important role if Members want full answers, but I agree that they should not be abused and that, where possible, the time between a holding answer and a substantive answer should be as short as possible. However, as a former Minister, the hon. Gentleman will know that that is not always possible if full information is to be obtained. I have to say that sometimes the quality of the answer has something to do with the quality of the question asked.
On Ministers signing letters, I believe that the hon. Gentleman knows that the pressure on different Ministers varies. Sometimes, Ministers are not available in London; some Ministers are abroad. I believe that Ministers do, by and large, sign as many letters as possible. It is not a new practice that Ministers' letters are signed on their behalf when they have approved the answer, and I think that hon. Members want replies as quickly as possible.

Mr. Vernon Coaker: In the light of the publication yesterday of Lord Justice Stuart-Smith's report about the Hillsborough disaster, will it be possible for time to be found in the House for hon. Members to discuss that report? My right hon. Friend must be aware of the continuing disquiet, upset, anxiety, worry and concern, and I would ask that time be found so that we may discuss the report.

Mrs. Taylor: I can well understand my hon. Friend's concern. I know that many families, who are still extremely upset by the events, were disappointed with the outcome of the very thorough inquiry and would like to take the matter further. Yesterday, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary made a comprehensive statement to the House, and I know that there is a feeling in some quarters that a debate might help.
Regardless of how sympathetic I am to the issue, I think that it would be raising false hopes if I suggested to my hon. Friend that it was likely that we could find Government time for a debate in the very near future. However, there may be other ways in which he or his colleagues can raise the issue.

Mr. Eric Forth: May I reassure the Leader of the House that some Conservative Members are still pager-free, and therefore still able to express the odd personal opinion? [HON. MEMBERS: "Very odd."] I hope that, in my case, they are always odd. I would be letting hon. Members down if they were not.
I congratulate the Lord Chancellor on his openness in giving us details of the amount of public money that has been spent on his residence and in that area, but would the Leader of the House have a word with the Prime Minister, who, to date, has been remarkably secretive, and unwilling to answer similar questions to those answered by the Lord Chancellor about similar expenditures in No. 10 and No. 11 Downing street? Perhaps the Leader

of the House could organise a debate, so that we might explore the difference between the attitude to open government of the Lord Chancellor and the Prime Minister.

Mrs. Taylor: I am not surprised that the right hon. Gentleman is pager-free. I have listened to his odd personal opinions for many years, and I am sure that he will remain pager-free and way off-message, which is probably why he is sitting on the Opposition Back Benches and not the Front Bench. Regarding his comments about the Prime Minister and the amounts of money that have been spent, it might be helpful if I reminded him and the House that, whether we are talking about the refurbishment of Government properties or about Government hospitality, the amounts spent by the present Government are less than those spent by the previous Government.

Mr. Christopher Leslie: May we have a debate next week on the issue of green-field sites in built-up areas, which are very valuable to their local communities, but are threatened with housing development, despite highways and sewerage constraints? I have two such sites in my constituency, at Warren lane in Gilstead and Jenny lane in Baildon. Housing development should not go ahead on those two sites, and I want to be able to raise that matter on the Floor of the House.

Mrs. Taylor: My hon. Friend will know that work is going on to try to ensure that the Government's record of protecting green-field sites will be better than that of the previous Government. My right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister will make a statement in the not too distant future.

Mr. Bernard Jenkin: May I remind the right hon. Lady that the Government are due to be involved in some momentous decisions up to 2 May this year, regarding who shall participate in economic and monetary union in Europe? Will she undertake that the House will be given information at least on how the Government intend to vote on who will participate? Better still, and with justice, will she allocate a full day for a debate on the matter? Surely, whether or not we participate in monetary union, this is hugely significant and should be addressed by the House. The Government ought to be answerable to the House on those matters.

Mrs. Taylor: I listened carefully to what the hon. Gentleman said. It is extremely tempting to hold such a debate, not least to expose the divisions among Opposition Members on this issue. I shall bear his point in mind.

Mr. John Hutton: May we have an early opportunity, perhaps in the next fortnight, to discuss Britain's relationships with the Federal Republic of Germany? Would not such a debate provide an excellent opportunity for the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) to apologise to the House for the offensive remarks that he made about Chancellor Kohl yesterday?

Mrs. Taylor: That is also a tempting proposition. The simple explanation may be that the right hon.
Member for Wokingham does not have a pager, either, and that is why he is not on message. There are problems in the Conservative party on Europe, which makes a debate tempting, but I am afraid that I cannot promise one in the next week or two.

Rev. Martin Smyth: Our local papers tell us that the Public Processions (Northern Ireland) Act 1998 continuation order is to come before the House, but there was no mention of it in the announcement of business for the next two weeks. Is it possible for the right hon. Lady to tell us when the order may be taken on the Floor of the House?

Mrs. Taylor: We have a lot of business, which we are trying to work into the programme. The business that I have announced for the week after next is, of course, provisional, although I hope that it will stay as it is fixed. I shall bear in mind the hon. Gentleman's need for early notice of such debates.

Mr. Andrew Mackinlay: May I press the Leader of the House to reconsider the request made by my hon. Friend the Member for Barrow and Furness (Mr. Hutton)? Politics is not a kid-gloves affair. We read in the newspapers this morning the revelation that the Leader of the Opposition has been substantially embarrassed on Europe by a member of the shadow Cabinet—a Member who coveted his job. It is reasonable for a Labour Member to ask for a debate so that the Leader of the Opposition can explain his position, the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) can apologise or decide to stand firm, and some of us can explore more fully the fact that Conservative Members are raising money in the United Kingdom to influence the outcome of the Denmark referendum.
When the Conservatives cannot command a majority in the House to scupper the Amsterdam treaty, they use the people of Denmark on a surrogate basis, and interfere in their affairs by raising money in the UK. It is time that we exposed the Conservative party's cant and hypocrisy on Europe.

Mrs. Taylor: I am not sure that my hon. Friend needs a debate to do that, as he has been exposing such matters quite well today. Fortunately, I am not responsible for any apologies that the right hon. Member for Wokingham may have to make. I remind the House that the next day for tabling questions to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office is Tuesday.

Mrs. Cheryl Gillan: Is the Leader of the House aware that there is growing concern both inside and outside the House over the Government's progress in tackling the year 2000 computer problem? For example, is she aware that the health service does not know either the extent of the problem or the full cost of the programme? In a written answer, the Prime Minister told me that all Departments and agencies have to find the cost of solving the problem out of their existing budgets. As that will run into millions of pounds, the House needs to know where cuts will fall in hospitals, schools, local authorities and even defence.
On 27 November, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster promised the House regular reports. Twelve weeks have passed and there has not been a murmur from him. Will the Leader of the House look on the matter with great urgency, and allow time for a debate or a statement on the subject, which greatly concerns us all?

Mrs. Taylor: It is a bit rich for a member of the previous Government to complain that not enough has been done, when the previous Administration did so little. My right hon. Friend made a comprehensive statement in November. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has been keeping a careful watch on progress. The Government have acted as swiftly as is necessary. I do not think that it is appropriate to have a debate in the immediate future.

Mr. Paul Flynn: Does my right hon. Friend agree that today's crisis involving 5,000 people who have had artificial hip implants was entirely predictable and inevitable, and was described in some detail in an Adjournment debate on 14 July 1993, when a plea was made to the previous Government to stop the introduction of literally dozens of new implants that were no better than the existing, available and reliable Charnley replacement? New implants were being manufactured to produce new patents, so as to make a great deal of money for the 60 firms that were producing the implants. They were dangerous then, unreliable and untested.
Is it not important that we have a debate to illustrate the great difference between the two sides of the House? The Conservatives pursued health, through their long years in office, as a way of making money for the market. In contrast, the philosophy of Labour Members is to emphasise quality of treatment, of prostheses, of drugs and of the skills of surgeons—in other words, measuring the quality of the health service, not quantity.

Mrs. Taylor: I am sure that many people who have had hip replacements will be extremely concerned at the prospect of a further operation, and will be angry that warnings given previously were not fully heeded. The Department of Health and my right hon. Friends have acted extremely quickly, given the information that has come to them. Hospitals are contacting all the relevant patients. A minority of those who have had hip replacements are involved, so I do not think that we should alarm too many people. However, it is a serious matter for those who are involved, and the previous Government bear some responsibility for not heeding other warnings that were given.

Mr. Norman Baker: I draw to the attention of the Leader of the House early-day motion 802.
[That this House is concerned that non-human primates transported to United Kingdom research laboratories suffer greatly as a result of the journey from their country of origin; notes that journey times of up to 58 hours from countries such as the Philippines, Indonesia, Mauritius and China are commonplace; further notes that the primates travel packed in small wooden crates in aeroplane holds; considers that such practices cause undue stress and suffering; is aware that it is Home Office policy to take into account adverse effects which may occur to animals during transport to the United Kingdom when deciding whether to allow their use in experiments;


and therefore calls upon the Home Office not to grant licences to experiment on primates when the adverse effects endured by them during transport are too severe to be outweighed by the benefit of research.]
Is it possible for a Home Office Minister to make a statement to the House? Is the right hon. Lady aware that monkeys used for experiments are being transported to this country for up to 58 hours, in crates in which they are unable to stand? The matter is under the control of the Home Office, which is at liberty to refuse licences. Will the right hon. Lady arrange for a Home Office Minister to explain why the process is being allowed to take place?

Mrs. Taylor: Home Office Ministers have taken action on some issues involving animal welfare, and that should be welcomed by the House. I shall bring the hon. Gentleman's points to the attention of my colleagues, but I would point out to him that Home Office questions will be taken a week on Monday.

Mr. John Cryer: May we have a debate on the shortage of speech therapists within the national health service, which is one of the major gaps in the NHS, especially in the area which I represent? The shortage was undoubtedly the responsibility of the Conservative Government.

Mr. Forth: Of course.

Mr. Cryer: May we have a debate, or a statement from the Department of Health, in the near future?

Mrs. Taylor: I am glad that the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) recognised the validity of what my hon. Friend was saying in terms of the problem being the responsibility of the previous Administration.
Over the past 20 years, we have seen a diminution in the number of speech therapists and an increase in the problems that exist. I shall bring my hon. Friend's remarks to the attention of my right hon. Friend, but I cannot promise an early debate. My hon. Friend may seek other opportunities to raise the issue. It is clearly a serious matter, because speech therapy can make a great deal of difference, especially to children.

Mr. Patrick Nicholls: May I ask the Leader of the House to consider a debate—if not next week, certainly in the near future—about support for school transport, especially transport for denominational schools? Is the right hon. Lady aware that the issue has particular topicality in that Liberal Democrat-controlled Devon county council is threatening to break an arrangement that has existed for more than 50 years— since 1944—by withdrawing denominational schools' transport?
The county council may or may not respond to pressure from parents to make it change its mind. Governments of both complexions—I pay credit to previous Labour

Governments as well as Conservative Administrations— have always made it clear that both national and local government should try to support transport for denominational schools. We need a debate so that we can examine what was done in Devon to try to ensure that, whatever happens in the end—

Mrs. Gillian Shephard: And Norfolk.

Mr. Nicholls: Indeed, Norfolk as well.
We must try to ensure that Liberal Democrat-controlled councils can never cause such heartache again.

Mrs. Taylor: I cannot promise a debate, but we shall have Education Question Time on Thursday.

Mr. Ian Bruce: I have previously raised with the Leader of the House the possibility of a debate on the blind trusts that brought the Prime Minister and various of his Ministers to office. Has she seen the preferment that has been given to the trustees of the blind trust? We can judge whether that is justified, but we still do not know who else gave money to it, or whether the Lord Chancellor or the Paymaster General donated. Surely we should know.
While I am on my feet, will the Leader of the House answer my letters about the time it takes for Ministers to answer letters?

Mrs. Taylor: The hon. Gentleman is right to say that he has raised the issue of blind trusts before. I have nothing further to say in response to that.
In respect of the letter that the hon. Gentleman wrote last week, I am looking at all the examples that he gave of where problems have arisen and why.

Mr. Paul Burstow: Can the right hon. Lady find time next week for a statement or debate on the operation of the benefits integrity project? To date, more than 40,000 disabled people receiving disability living allowance have been interviewed or had questionnaires sent to them about their entitlement to benefit. Many have had their benefit stopped or reduced, but have been successful on appeal and had their benefits reinstated. Many others have received questionnaires when they should not have been included in the programme. The programme is clearly in a mess. We need to know what the Government are doing to ensure that the project has integrity. Please may we have a statement or debate?

Mrs. Taylor: We shall have Social Security Question Time on Monday. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will be here to pursue the matter. I am also sure that all hon. Members think it right that we should ensure that people claim the right benefit, and that only those who are fully entitled to it get it.

Local Government Finance (Scotland)

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Donald Dewar): I beg to move,
That the Local Government Finance (Scotland) Order 1998, dated 4th February 1998, a copy of which was laid before this House on 5th February, be approved.
We are also discussing the following motions:
That the Revenue Support Grant (Scotland) Order 1998, dated 4th February 1998, a copy of which was laid before this House on 5th February, be approved.
That the Special Grant Report (98/1) (Scotland): Local Taxation Collection Grant Scheme 1997–99 (HC 530), which was laid before this House on 5th February, be approved.
That the Special Grant Report (98/2) (Scotland): Grant in Aid of Local Authority Revenue Costs and Reinstatement Works at Dunblane Cemetery Resulting from the Dunblane Tragedy (HC 531), which was laid before this House on 5th February, be approved.
That the draft Housing Support Grant (Scotland) Variation Order 1998, which was laid before this House on 29th January, be approved.
That the draft Housing Support Grant (Scotland) Order 1998, which was laid before this House on 29th January, be approved.
I am putting before the House a comprehensive package of legislation that sets the framework for local authority funding for the year ahead. It is an important package. I do not pretend that it makes exciting material for debate—the possibility of flashing wit is somewhat limited—but it is the stuff of politics. It is the basis of the framework within which local government must operate, and it deserves thoughtful consideration. I do not know whether there can or should be a wide-ranging debate, but I hope that the debate is relevant and specific to the issues of real substance. Before I briefly introduce each of the orders and reports, I shall say a few words about the general background to the measures.
The prospects for local government next year were bound to be extremely tight given the public expenditure plans that we inherited from the previous Administration. As every hon. Member knows—unless they have cut themselves off completely from political debate over the past nine or 10 months—we committed ourselves, if returned as an Administration, to stick by the inherited totals. I make no apologies for that, as there were obviously good and sound reasons for it. I occasionally meet someone who says, "I know the present Chancellor said it, but I didn't believe he meant it." Well, as they say, they know now. I can assure the House that this is not some conversion to masochism. It is not hair-shirt politics for the sake of it. Because we believe that there are sound, long-term economic reasons for holding hard to the public expenditure figures in the first two years of Administration, we have done so.
It is obviously important that we hold inflation in check and borrowing is a matter for concern. We want to ensure that we have growth in the economy but at a level that can be sustained over a period and be a proper basis for our social and other plans in the future. We do not want, as has too often happened under many Governments in the past, a retreat to boom-and-bust conditions.

Mr. James Wallace: The Secretary of State has made something of sticking by

the previous Government's spending plans. He recall that the previous Government said that they v prepared to commute the housing debt of Shetland Islands council—and that of the Western Isles council Highland council—yet the Government will no longer that. Can the Secretary of State give an explanation that and, in particular, give the housing policy considerations underlying that decision, which v referred to in a letter from his Department to Shell Islands council on 9 December 1997?

Mr. Dewar: This is a subject on which the hon. learned Gentleman is probably well informed. I do remember in detail what the Conservative Government said on the matter, but I am aware of the issue. It is on which, in principle, we have some sympathy with council. The immediate problem was divergence interest rates, which shifted the balance and costs considerably, but that is no doubt something that car discussed again when the circumstances are right I thought that the hon. and learned Gentleman was at to write that down, in which case I might begin to that I had gone too far. But there we are; we all live \ our mistakes.
During Scottish questions, an hon. Gentleman whose name I know—but not his constituency—rose to as question. His opening shot was to ask how I explained fact that there was not more fuss from local government about what the Labour Government are doing. I ha\ lot of sympathy with the hon. Gentleman, because he obviously looking at a local government structure an financial system about which he knows little. I understand that, because his constituency is far fi Scotland and I suspect that he was protected simply b rather flimsy brief from the Whips Office. It was a g feed line, because it reminded us just how severe draconian the settlement would have been if Conservative Members had held on to power. It is worth reminding House of that because it is the background against which what is happening now will be judged.

Mr. John Swinney: The Secretary State talks of the lack of fuss about the local government settlement. I might agree with him to some extent on sc aspects of the debate, but the Labour group on Perth Kinross council supported a motion put forward by Scottish National party administration express its dismay and disappointment at the new Lab Government's decision to continue with the for Conservative Government's spending targets for local authorities. Would that constitute a fuss in the right I Gentleman's eyes?

Mr. Dewar: I was quoting a Conservative Member, endorsing what he said. I was making the simple put that we have held the settlement in broad terms, but with the context in which we are operating we have tried to introduce elements of genuine flexibility to help local government. We have tried to understand its priorities preserve them and weight the settlement in favour of them. We have, with the co-operation of local government, been able to produce a well-ordered settlement. I have always recognised that councils face tough decisions, but they are decisions that most councils are addressing sensibly and responsibly against background of a recognition of some of the financial economic reasons why this policy is being followed.
I do not object to the SNP majority on Angus council taking a line hostile to the Government. I would be surprised if it did not, and I suspect that the local Member of Parliament would be even more surprised. I cannot remember what part the wife of the hon. Member for Angus (Mr. Welsh) presently plays in local government in Angus, but I am sure that he is well able to put in his tuppenceworth of advice and guidance on the matter. We give those expressions the weight that they deserve.

Mr. Swinney: The right hon. Gentleman may not have heard fully what I said. The motion, which was before Perth and Kinross council, of which the wife of my hon. Friend the Member for Angus (Mr. Welsh) is not a member, was supported by the Labour group on the council, expressing its concern at the Labour Government's commitment to the previous Administration's spending targets, a point which has concerned many hon. Members on both sides of the House.

Mr. Dewar: I apologise. I misheard the hon. Gentleman. I should have realised that he is not responsible for affairs in Angus. The hon. Member for Angus (Mr. Welsh) is ubiquitous on those matters. I shall not be distracted further; let me return to the thrust of this debate.
In the plans set by the previous Administration, central Government grant to local authorities—aggregate external finance—was set to fall in cash terms by more than 1 per cent. and expenditure was to rise by only 0.7 per cent. in cash terms, even taking account of the various and significant new spending pressures facing councils. I am thinking, for example, of care in the community, for which this Government have included £24.5 million in the settlement, and of the impact of the Children Act (Scotland) 1995, for which £11 million has been put into the settlement. Given the threats that were in store, many people will look with realism at what the Government have managed.

Mr. Michael Ancram: The Secretary of State keeps referring to the figures that were put forward by the previous Government. Does he agree that those were the figures in the public expenditure survey for year two, that they were therefore provisional and, given the nature of the public expenditure survey, that they would have been revised when they dropped into the slot where they become year 1 figures?

Mr. Dewar: The diffident way in which that possibility was inserted into the debate was touching. I know that the right hon. Gentleman has ambitions to be classed as a wet, but the suggestion that the figures would have been changed radically is over-optimistic.

Mr. Ancram: Is the Secretary of State saying that year two in Labour's public expenditure survey will be cast in tablets of stone and not open to revision?

Mr. Dewar: I do not know what the right hon. Gentleman's speech will contain, but I have always taken seriously the Conservatives' claims to wish to cut public spending. I do not imagine for a moment that he would

have wanted me to take them less than seriously. Let me take the argument on a little and follow up what I said to the hon. Member Perth and Kinross—

Mr. Swinney: North Tayside.

Mr. Dewar: I am sorry, I meant the hon. Member for North Tayside (Mr. Swinney).

Mr. Swinney: The Secretary of State's geography is terrible.

Mr. Dewar: I know; it is like my counting.
It is important to look at how the settlement has been deployed, which is within comparatively tight parameters. We have tried to ensure that certain areas are given priority—areas that we think are of social importance, which we featured in our general election campaign and which we believe reflect the priorities that people in Scotland voted for. We were able to provide an additional Government grant of more than £90 million for education and to allow local authorities additional spending power of £150 million over and above the inherited plans.

Mr. Andrew Welsh: Will the extra money for education be an on-going or a one-off allocation? When the Local Government Commission meets, will it be allowed also to consider finance, which is important?

Mr. Dewar: I can only point to our priorities, which we intend to reinforce in the coming years. Spending plans are clearly open to adjustment—I concede that much to the right hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram). We are trying to ensure that education is given priority, which is as it should be.

Mr. Welsh: So the allocation is a one-off.

Mr. Dewar: I did not say that it is a one-off allocation; I said that it is a priority that we intend to continue to favour, but how we do that and to what extent, and how we can improve and build on it, we shall have to see as the economy develops.
Not just the £90 million was in the settlement; we have also inherited plans for £3 million for early learning initiatives and for numeracy and literacy. That rose to £7 million. We have a school-building programme of £27 million for next year and additional money—some £9 million—was found to allow local authorities to implement the pledge on nursery places for all four-year-olds whose parents wish to take advantage of them. As I am sure the hon. Gentleman will recognise, there is a degree of weighting in that sense, which I hope he will feel able to support as a principle.
We have given particular weighting to certain matters that have involved a good deal of controversy. To be fair, that is true of the last Administration as well. I am thinking of, for example, law and order and the police in particular. There has been some controversy over the police allocation, which I have tackled head on. In 1998–99, police grant-aided expenditure will be 3.8 per cent. above the budget for this year. In 1996–97, it was 7.7 per cent. up on the previous year and in 1997–98 it was 9.7 per cent. up on the previous year.


There has been a cumulative effort to ensure that funding is adequate. That is in sharp contrast with what was managed in the overall local government settlement, in which increases in GAE averaged around 2 per cent., or just over 2 per cent. That does not mean that there are not problems. I am merely pointing out that law and order is another issue on which we have delivered on our pledges. We have tried to reflect what I think ordinary citizens in Scotland going about their business consider important.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Dewar: I am not going to deal with every point of information that comes up, although I see that there are some enthusiastic runners. I shall, however, give way to the hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) as he is a Front Bencher.

Dr. Liam Fox: The Secretary of State throws percentages around, but the simple fact is that the Scottish chief constables said that the police needed an extra £28 million this year for a standstill budget and they are getting £11 million. How on earth does that square with the Government's manifesto promise to be tough on crime?

Mr. Dewar: I accept that figures must sometimes be looked at carefully, but if the hon. Gentleman looks at the figures he will see that I have represented the position correctly. I think that the base line on which the claims were made was a rather optimistic starting point. If the hon. Gentleman examines what has happened to the budget year on year, I think he will see that I am being very reasonable and that what I am saying has been well borne out.

Sir Robert Smith: Will the Secretary of State give way?

Mr. Dewar: I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman; then I must push on for a few minutes.

Sir Robert Smith: The Secretary of State might like to look at the history of the funding of the police. The last Government altered the ground rules when they introduced capping on the cash available for the police-specific grant. In the past, it had been possible for local authorities to draw down additional funds for the police by going over the capping level of the GAE. The right hon. Gentleman should compare like with like. What looked like an increase in 1996–97 was artificial: in the case of several authorities, there was no real increase in Government cash for the police, because in the past they had been able to spend over GAE.

Mr. Dewar: All I can say is that provision in the settlement has gone up steadily in comparative terms, as against the settlement as a whole. I would not for a moment deny that there have been problems with police spending. Some authorities, under pressure, have spent significantly below GAE for certain joint police boards. I am merely saying that, if we are looking for priorities, the fire service and the police are among the services that

have been protected to some extent against the hard times with which most departments, and most other areas of council activity, have had to struggle in recent settlements. I will not retreat from that position for a moment.
Aggregate external finance is now set to increase in the coming financial year by over £33 million, or 0.6 per cent., and Government-supported expenditure by £133 million, or 2.2 per cent. The provisional capping principles that I also announced on 3 December allow Scottish local authorities to increase their capped expenditure by more than 3.4 per cent., a total of £191 million. Let me point out for the last time that those who look back at what was planned will see that that is a significant improvement.
I have carefully considered the available capping options and concluded that the fairest approach to all was the tiered regime that allows councils spending closer to GAE a greater general increase than those spending well above GAE. Those capping principles are in every respect more generous than those allowed in the previous year, as I think hon. Members will recognise.
I recognise the tough choices that all local authorities will face in setting their budgets for 1998–99. They will have to focus resources on our agreed priorities and cope with some inescapable pressures, such as the increase in the costs of their pension contributions arising from the abolition of advance corporation tax credits. I recognise that that is a matter of concern to local authorities and that it will put pressure on their budgets.

Mr. Donald Gorrie: The £36 million that is required by councils to pay the advance corporation tax on pensions was not inherited from the Conservatives, so the Government cannot blame them for that. That change in the law has brought in a huge amount of money to the Treasury. Is it not reasonable that the Secretary of State should ask his colleague in the Treasury to give back that sort of amount? It affects only Scottish councils this year—it will affect English councils later—but it is a major issue. There is a simple way of finding what must be a large pot of gold to help pay for this.

Mr. Dewar: The hon. Gentleman makes a point that local government has, understandably, made forcibly. This is a pressure that it will have to cope with. I do not for a moment pretend that there are not substantial pressures. In the coming year, public sector pay will be a pressure, for example, on local government budgets, but it is right that we hold to the policy that we announced.
Of course, in some ways, there have been other unusual factors this year, as the hon. Gentleman, a long-standing and long-serving councillor, will know. For example, the pattern of debt repayment has changed, which means that, this year, getting on for £70 million is available to local government which would not otherwise have been there. That is not new money in the sense that it is additional spending power, but it allows councils to take up any room for expenditure without putting an enormous burden on their council tax payers. That, for example, is an important factor in this year's settlement.
However, I have never hidden the fact—I keep making this point; I will did so for the last time—that difficult and tough decisions must be taken. I have considerable respect for the way in which most councils, at least, are trying to face up to some of the problems.
We have had a helpful dialogue with local authorities, both bilaterally and through the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities. At the most recent meeting with the convention, it was made clear to me that local authorities would welcome in particular the flexibility to convert a small amount of their capital spending power into revenue expenditure, to relieve some of the pressures on their revenue budgets next year. That would help, in particular, those councils that were able to set very low council tax increases next year.
Following consideration of those representations, I announced on 13 February that I was prepared to allow all councils the opportunity to increase their budgeted revenue expenditure for next year by up to 0.25 per cent. of base budget, on top of their existing capping limit, provided they keep the increase in their band D council tax below the likely Scottish average.
It is right to try to introduce that element of flexibility. I willingly concede that it is not a major addition to the room for manoeuvre of local government. It is probably worth about £10 million, but it will allow that transfer and a little welcome, I hope, additional flexibility.

Sir Robert Smith: rose—

Mr. Dewar: I do not regard it as a major matter and, with respect to the hon. Gentleman, I would like to make a little more progress.
It is worth stressing that the scheme is an example of the close working relationship that we have developed with COSLA. I pay tribute to its efforts. After 18 years, Scottish local government representatives welcomed the opportunity to discuss, in what I hope was a constructive and progressive way, the harsh choices that local government faces over the next few years. There have been substantial benefits to both sides from that dialogue and from that ability to co-operate.
The Local Government Finance (Scotland) Order 1998 is the first order before us today. It sets out the amounts of revenue support grant and non-domestic rate income that will be payable to each authority in 1998–99. It also redetermines the amounts of revenue support grant that are payable for 1997–98.
Hon. Members who have studied the papers will be aware of the fact that the order is accompanied by a report that sets out in detail the background to the figures in it. The detailed calculations have been the subject of consultation with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, with which we have had a good working relationship, and they deal with matters of distribution. The distribution formula was reached by agreement between the parties.
I am particularly pleased that this year we have been able to agree with COSLA to introduce a measure of stability into the grant distribution arrangements. They looked as if they might produce some rough weather for some councils as a result of no action by those councils. The stability arrangement limits the extent to which changes in grant distribution can cause hugely uneven pressures on council tax in different parts of the country. To some extent, they arise from the redistribution of the social work GAE figures and the phasing out of the mismatch finance which dealt on a transitional basis with the problems and costs of reorganisation.
If there had not been a co-operative effort by COSLA to spread the load and phase the change, there would have been a dramatic difference. For example, in the City of Glasgow those two items alone would have resulted in an additional £166 on band D council tax. The figure for Dundee would have been more than £86. I am grateful to local government generally and to COSLA for its mediation for enabling us to formulate a sensible scheme that limits the impact arising from the changes to a maximum of £40. That was a genuine contribution to good order in our local government finance system.
The Revenue Support Grant (Scotland) Order 1998 is also accompanied by an explanatory report. The order makes what we expect to be the last set of adjustments under the AEF guarantee. No one is allowed to ask me any questions about that. It relates to payments in respect of 1992–93 and is worth, in total and at the limit, £200,000. It is of almost theological interest to experts in my Department, but I am not a true believer. It is obviously an important part of the mechanism, but I do not think that any hon. Member will be interested in pursuing it. If anyone does, I warn him now that I shall write to him later.
I shall now deal with the local taxation collection scheme special grant report. It relates to a special grant of £3 million to councils in the hope that it will go some way towards enabling them to put in place measures to tackle the significant burden of unpaid local taxes on their balance sheets. I appreciate the difficulty of doing that and it may be impossible to recover debts from the poll tax days. However, there is a chance of recovering debts from more recent times if proper steps are taken and this modest sum, if distributed on the basis of the amount of debt outstanding, might assist in bringing returns.
I say to any of my hon. Friends who are concerned about the matter that it is important for people to meet their obligations. If they do not, the burden falls increasingly on those who have and that is inequitable and unsatisfactory. Perhaps the limited funds will be used to improve IT records, issue reminders and engage in general chasing. It is a reasonable investment and I understand that it has been well received by local government.
The Dunblane special grant report enables a payment of only £1 million. It is a small but necessary contribution to Stirling council to help it to deal with the unusual and rather sensitive expenses that followed the tragedy in Dunblane primary school. It relates largely to the costs of counselling and to certain expenditure on education that was required in the aftermath of the tragedy. I do not think that anyone would begrudge or question the wisdom of that.
I shall deal now with the housing support grant orders that are also before the House. The first is the draft variation order. It is normal practice to bring forward a variation order if, during the year, there has been a change in the pool interest rate used in the calculation of the loan charges element of the housing support grant settlement. In the current year there has been a slight increase in the pool interest rate and the variation order provides for a consequent increase in housing support grant payable in 1997–98 from £15.2 million to £15.6 million. It is entirely a reflection of interest rate fluctuations and it is comparatively on the margin.
There is also the Housing Support Grant (Scotland) Order 1998, which provides for a total amount payable in 1998–99 of £12.7 million. That comprises £9.3 million payable to Highland, Shetland Islands and Western Isles


in respect of their mainstream housing costs and £3.4 million payable to 20 authorities as a contribution towards the running costs of their hostels for the homeless.
The grant calculations are based on an assumed rental income of £40.56 per house per week and assumed management and maintenance expenditure of £859 per house per annum, an increase of 3 per cent. over the equivalent figures used last year. I should emphasise that the figures are neither guidelines nor recommendations but are used for the purpose of housing support grant formula only. They are uprated annually. It is a formula calculation that has been accepted and well established for some time.
Housing support grant—there is no need for me to discuss this in detail—has declined greatly over the years. At its height it was running at about £240 million but, as rents have increased, some of that has transferred to the housing benefit totals and, as housing support grant has fallen, they have risen. It goes back to an argument that is as old as me—if that is possible—about whether to subsidise the house or the person. No doubt the Government will wrestle with that as certainly as did the previous Government.
We are dealing now with a comparatively small part of the sweep of housing finance. I remind colleagues that we have managed to find about an additional £50 million for housing in the public sector, £35 million of which is for housing partnerships, which we hope will be a way of levering in private finance to provide accommodation, and £7 million for the empty homes initiative as well as other sums such as £5 million for energy efficiency and so on. I would be the last to suggest that that represented a revolution, but it is at least a first attempt to do something about the acute problems facing the housing sector, particularly the public sector. It may be that people will want to comment on those matters.

Mr. Welsh: rose—

Mr. Dewar: I see one person who wants to comment now. Let us hear him.

Mr. Welsh: Will the Secretary of State admit that those figures come against a backcloth of a drop of £484 million in the housing budget over the past two years? Therefore, any increases, although welcome, have to be taken in the context of a rapidly falling commitment to housing by the Government.

Mr. Dewar: I should thank the hon. Gentleman for welcoming what has been done in the initiatives I have mentioned. It will be very difficult for any Government, based on any unit within the United Kingdom, to solve the housing problem simply by straight subvention from the public purse. I freely concede that levering in private finance and housing partnerships and so on will be an increasingly important part of the process.
I take the view—I think it is sensible—that I want my constituents and the constituents of the hon. Member for Angus (Mr. Welsh) to live in housing that is sound, dry and adequate and which is the type of housing that they want to live in. My job as Secretary of State and the job

of my Department is to use every possible endeavour to achieve that end. I believe that the way in which that burden is shared will alter in the time ahead, but that is a challenge to which we should rise and which we should welcome. I want to leave it at that now. We will have many other opportunities to discuss these matters in the future.
I recognise that there are problems. I recognise some of the frustrations and difficulties, many of which are put to me forcibly by friends and colleagues of many years. I also recognise and give a heartfelt welcome to the realism with which local government is going about its task. I recognise the determination to find a way forward which is represented in the co-operation over best value and the determination to increase efficiency and to make the delivery of services more effective. If we can achieve great things in that way and move forward, and if we can put the public finances on a sound footing, we will be well placed to achieve targets and to meet our priorities in the years ahead.

Mr. Michael Ancram: It is somewhat nostalgic for me to participate in this debate today. It is 11 years since I was last involved in what was then a debate on rate support grant in the House and I was sitting behind the Government Dispatch Box. I have some sympathy with the Secretary of State. I have wonderful recollections of grant variation orders and pool interest rates. Whenever they arose, I hoped that I could leave it to another Minister to answer the questions later or that I could write to hon. Members.
It is rather sad to think that this is probably one of the last two such debates in the House. After the inception of the Scottish Parliament, presumably these debates will be transferred, at least in their detail, to that Parliament. We will no longer be able to enjoy these wonderful celebrations of clear formulaic thinking on the part of Scottish Office Ministers and officials.

Mr. John McAllion: May I assure the right hon. Gentleman that he is probably alone in the House in thinking that it is sad that these matters will no longer be debated here? I am delighted that, in two years' time, they will be debated in Scotland.

Mr. Ancram: The hon. Gentleman's sense of humour is not in line with mine. If he thinks that these debates will be enjoyed any more in a Scottish Parliament—or be any better attended there—he may be indulging in a little wishful thinking.
These debates are minefields. It is much easier to be speaking for the Opposition than for the Government, because I can ask the questions and the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, the hon. Member for Western Isles (Mr. Macdonald), who is responsible for local government, will have to answer them.
I remember being told that the formulas are very exclusive. They are understood by three people—one is dead, one is mad and one advises the Secretary of State. [Interruption.] I am glad that the Secretary of State seems to be confirming that that is still the situation in the Scottish Office.
On housing, we accept both the formula and the principle behind what is proposed. I have always taken the view that it is better to subsidise people than bricks


and mortar, and I welcome the fact that that is what the Secretary of State is pursuing. His hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion) is shaking his head—so whether that will last into a Scottish Parliament is perhaps another matter.
I always enjoy the Secretary of State's performance. Today's was a feat of gentle ingenuity in which he tried to portray the settlement as some sort of triumph. He called it a well-ordered settlement and justified that by saying, that if there is anything wrong with it, it is the fault of those who have gone before, and that if there is anything good about it, that is entirely for him. I thought that that was his argument. It avoids one fundamental political fact, which, after nine months, I am surprised has not impressed itself on the Secretary of State.
The settlement is not down to the last Government but is totally in the hands of his Government. We are talking about a new financial year on the back of a Budget that was struck by the Chancellor last July—I will come back to that—and it will take place after a further Budget from the Chancellor in March. He cannot do other than take full responsibility for what is in the orders. He cannot shelter behind the phrase "inherited plans". One Government do not bind another and he knows that. If he wanted to abandon what he calls the inherited plans, he was entitled to do so. He is adopting a cop-out position that does not fool anyone.
I asked the Secretary of State whether the public expenditure surveys for years two and three were provisional. Although he chided me for asking, he effectively admitted that they were. He said that provisional spending plans are revisited—I think that I am quoting him correctly—as the economic situation develops. That is why the Government have provisional spending plans. They cannot see two or three years ahead, but they have to give some idea of the likely levels of spending. They set provisional spending plans and consider the economic situation when the time arrives.
I am sure that Labour Members appreciate that the economic situation has developed considerably over the past year, not least with the extraordinary windfall—if I may use the word—of tax revenue that allowed the Chancellor to make a £10.4 billion repayment of borrowing two days ago. He could make that record repayment because there was more tax coming in than anyone expected, partly from growth and partly from self-assessment.
The figures that the Secretary of State is dealing with today were put forward on the basis of a different economic situation. They cannot be justified in today's circumstances. It is for the Secretary of State and the Chancellor to decide whether to use that unexpected £10.4 billion windfall to fill a war chest to try to buy the next general election or to look after people who need looking after now.
Given the problems facing local government, I suspect that many people in local authorities throughout Scotland would like some of the extra cash that is available. The Government had the opportunity to give them some of it. The Secretary of State has no credibility sheltering behind historic figures and wringing his hands because the settlement is not as good as he would like. He cannot keep hiding behind the previous Government's figures. He must face up to his own.
Important questions need to be asked about the settlement. On Tuesday, at Scottish Office questions, the Secretary of State said:
The increase in cash terms is 3.4 per cent."—[Official Report, 17 February 1998; Vol. 306, c. 880.]
That is above the current rate of inflation. He told us today that the settlement is better than it would have been had the previous Government still been in office. The Convention of Scottish Local Authorities has provided a useful briefing that says:
Next year's settlement shows a cash standstill on inherited plans.
Taking away some of the specific and exceptional increases, it says that there is not a great increase, but a cash standstill. That does not tally with what the Secretary of State said on Tuesday.
On 30 November last year, the Secretary of State wrote to Councillor Geddes, describing the settlement as
a real terms reduction in support of local authorities.
That means that the council will be able to buy less this year than last.
We have an enormous number of different sets of weasel words, all of which seem contradictory.

Mr. Dewar: The 3.4 per cent. is the increase in spending limits. The amount that the authorities are able to spend has risen by 3.4 per cent. That is the figure in which people are interested.

Mr. Ancram: I was careful to quote the Secretary of State's comment on Tuesday correctly. He said that it was a 3.4 per cent. increase in cash terms. Perhaps he would like to write to me about that. My understanding of cash terms corresponds with COSLA's statement that there will be a cash standstill on inherited plans. One of those statements is wrong. I should like to know the answer.

Mr. Wallace: I am interested to know where the right hon. Gentleman's argument is going. He rightly says that the Secretary of State has a free hand. During our debates on funding for the Scottish Parliament, most, if not all, Conservative Members have said that Scotland gets too much per head. Is he saying that we are getting too much and the Secretary of State should give us more, or is he saying that we are getting too much and the Secretary of State should give us less?

Mr. Ancram: I am trying to find out what the Secretary of State is saying. He seems to be contradicting what he said in his letter to Councillor Geddes in November and what COSLA has said. Is the settlement, which rests heavily on inherited plans, to be described as "rotten", as Labour Members described last year's settlement, or is it a tight but fair settlement, as the hon. Member for Western Isles has said? It is either rotten or tight but fair. It cannot be both. If it is the latter, it cannot be said to rely on last year's spending plans. The Government must decide why they rest their defence for this year's settlement on the basis that they are dealing with last year's figures, which they so vehemently opposed at the time.

Mr. Dewar: The right hon. Gentleman must be aware that I said that we started with those plans and have improved on them. That is the important point. I repeat


that the cap limit is up by an average of 3.4 per cent. That is the amount that local authorities will be allowed to spend. That is a considerable increase. I accept that the right hon. Gentleman may claim that the Conservatives would not have held to their plans. If he wants to say that definitively, that might be of interest to us. Our settlement is a considerable improvement on the plans that we inherited.
I am not sheltering behind the right hon. Gentleman or anyone else. That would be a flimsy shelter. We have said from the beginning that there are good economic arguments for putting the public finances on a sound and stable footing to achieve a sustainable growth rate in the economy. Local authority expenditure must play its part.

Mr. Ancram: That does not answer the question that I asked earlier. Perhaps we shall have an answer in the winding-up speech. I understand that the £10.4 billion windfall was £4 billion more than the Chancellor had predicted in the autumn. The Secretary of State should have considered using some of that money to provide for the problems that he has outlined. He decided not to. In my book, a real-terms reduction is not an improvement and a cash standstill is not an increase. If that is his defence, everyone in local government in Scotland will know it.
In the debate on the Welsh revenue support grant last week, the Secretary of State for Wales made it clear that he would examine capping. It is Government policy to try to remove capping in England. Is that the policy in Scotland? If the cap goes, who will make up the shortfall between what can be provided by central Government and what will have to be raised by council tax? Will there be an increase in the revenue support grant to make up for the removal of capping, or will it be left to council tax payers?
I join the Secretary of State in welcoming the grant in aid orders for Dunblane. We all shared the grief of that community and we share a desire to provide help, even if it is, of necessity, limited. However, there is not much else in the settlement that is welcome. It is a sorry picture for local government and a cruel picture for council tax payers.

Mr. Gorrie: If there is so much wrong with the settlement, will the right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends join me and my hon. Friends in the Lobby to vote against it?

Mr. Ancram: I should like to hear what the hon. Gentleman has to say before committing myself to supporting him. It would be unwise to give an undertaking on the basis of an argument that I have not yet heard.
Some councils have done better than others in the settlement. I shall not go into the details of that. However, I should like a brief explanation of the formula for the individual distribution of the revenue support grant to councils. In particular, what criteria, if any, have changed in the formula since last year? I remember changes being made in the formula from year to year. I should also like to know whether any of those changes were made on the basis of representations and what those representations were.
I should like to raise some more general points. The Secretary of State was almost apologetic about some of the problems facing local government at the moment. He referred to several extra costs that local authorities face. The reason why I was surprised by his apology, if it

was an apology, was that all these costs have arisen because of a deliberate decision taken by the Labour Government.
The hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Mr. Gorrie) asked about advance corporation tax, or what I prefer to call the pension tax. When it was introduced in July, we were told that we were wrong to suggest that it would have a deleterious effect on councils or individuals. We are now being told, understandably, that it will have a significant effect on councils in Scotland.
The hon. Member for Edinburgh, West mentioned £36 million, which is the figure that COSLA says in its brief will be the cost to it. That cost arises only because of a decision taken by the Chancellor last year. There is no way that the Secretary of State, as a member of the same Cabinet and bound by collective responsibility, can somehow dissociate himself from that decision. It is a cost that will be borne by Scottish councils because of a deliberate act of the Chancellor—new Labour, higher costs.
Interest rates have risen five times, or 1.25 per cent., since 1 May—new Labour, higher interest rates. People may ask, "What do interest rates matter to local government?" I can tell those not in local government that they matter very much, especially with regard to debts. In 1996–97, the debt stood at £5.6 billion. That is up £377 million on the previous year. I understand that it costs £793 million to service that debt. That is a substantial sum, and we need more information about it because the cost of servicing the debt is four and a half times greater per head than in England—£151 per head in Scotland as opposed to £33 in England.
I have cited the figure for the previous year, but what is the current debt figure? What is the increased cost of servicing that debt, and how much of that this year will be due to the increases in interest rates that have occurred under this Government? The costs caused by the increases in interest rates will be borne by the council tax payer, either through increased council taxes or reductions in services.
We also need to know about the impact of the minimum wage. The trade unions and local authorities in Scotland have agreed a minimum wage of £4 an hour. I understand that that represents an increase of 2.8 per cent., or some £20 million on wage bills. Clearly, it is part of the Government's policy, even if the Government have not yet struck their minimum wage limit. What provision, if any, has been made in the settlement for this increase? Will the money be found through cuts in services, or through increases in the council tax? If the Government are to set a minimum wage in the coming months, what provision has been made for it in the settlement to ensure that it will not adversely affect jobs or council tax payers?
We note that there are some strange reductions. The Secretary of State spoke about police funding. He was asked a question by my hon. Friend the Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox), and his answer was surprising. Was my hon. Friend right to say that the £11 million that is being given this year is less than half what the chief constables asked for? If so, were the chief constables wrong to say that they needed £28 million in order to achieve a standstill? If that is not the case, how can the Secretary of State explain the chief constables' dissatisfaction with the provision that has been made?
I deal now with uncollected taxes. There is nearly £900 million worth of uncollected tax relating to local authorities in Scotland. That is up £150 million on last year. It is surprising that there has been such an enormous jump over the past 12 months. As we know, where there are uncollected taxes, the council tax payers who do pay end up subsidising those who do not.
A grant was made last year, and a grant is being made this year, to enable local authorities to collect the uncollected tax. Given the increase in the sum of uncollected tax this year, what happened to the grant that was given last year? Has there been an audit to see whether the grant is an effective way to proceed? In the light of the deteriorating situation, what proposals do the Government have to improve the rate of collection?
All this means higher council taxes for Scottish council tax payers. Once again, we see that, under a Labour Government, local taxes go up. This year there will be an average increase of 7 per cent. in Scotland, which is double the rate of inflation. Each council tax payer will pay £55 extra, all because of the reasons that I have outlined. The solution lies with the Government. Whatever else it may be, the settlement hardly matches the description given by the hon. Member for Western Isles, who said that it was fair.
The Government cannot duck responsibility. It all comes back to the grant and how it is distributed, and that is a matter for the Government alone. Council tax payers will have to bear the cost, and Labour councils will continue to have to struggle with debts and the difficulties involved in collecting taxes. Against that background, the Labour Government are increasing the costs imposed on local government. In the end, it is a cynical exercise by the Labour Government to make sure that, when the general election comes, they have money with which to buy the support of voters.
The settlement is a blow to Scottish council tax payers:
once more, Council Tax payers will be paying more for fewer services and possibly facing higher charges.
Those are not my words, but those of the president of COSLA, Councillor Geddes, on 3 December last year. He was right then, and is right now. The settlement is one of which the Secretary of State and his colleagues should be roundly ashamed.

Mr. Donald Gorrie: In our view, the settlement is deceitful, mean, destructive and unnecessary.

Mr. Welsh: He does not like it.

Mr. Gorrie: No, I do not like it.
Scottish local government is in the position of a school pupil being unjustly belted by a series of head teachers. The Tory teacher used to belt local government and say, "I'm not really belting you. This does not hurt at all, and there is no cut." There has now been a change to a Labour teacher who belts local government while weeping bitterly and saying, "This hurts me more than it hurts you"—but it still hurts. The cuts continue.
Why is the settlement deceitful? The Government are keeping in the settlement the idea that £40 million will be saved by local authorities because of the reorganisation of

a couple of years ago. However, they know that that is not happening. I received an answer from the hon. Member for Edinburgh, North and Leith (Mr. Chisholm) who has now honourably returned to the Back Benches. When I asked about the Government's estimates, he said:
The Government do not endorse those assumptions"—
about the £40 million saving—
but we are committed to live within the existing public expenditure control totals for this year and next."—[Official Report, 23 July 1997; Vol. 298, c. 610.]
Therefore, the Government concede that the £40 million is a chimera, a mirage, or one of those things that does not exist, yet they keep it in the figures. What sort of honesty is that?

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Calum Macdonald): We do not keep it in the figures, in the sense that we do not base future grant allocations on those figures. We recognise that they were wrong, but it is not possible to unpick them, go back and re-do them all over again. If we did, some councils would gain, but others would lose.

Mr. Gorrie: I am still not clear whether the £40 million exists or not. I am advised by the director of finance in Edinburgh that his capping limit is based on the idea that Edinburgh's share of the £40 million exists, but it does not exist, so Edinburgh is penalised by having a lower capping limit than it should have.

Mr. Swinney: Would not the £40 million gap in the assumptions be tackled if the Government allocated £40 million to local authorities? They have the power and, as we have heard in the past few days, the money, to do it.

Mr. Gorrie: I agree.
The next issue is the landfill tax, which the Government accept will cost local authorities £18.5 million in the corning year. They allow no money for that; it will have to be found magically. There is nothing in the settlement for the Children (Scotland) Act 1995, which it is accepted will cost £11 million in the coming year. The budget is based on a series of false assumptions whose cost local authorities must bear.

Mr. Macdonald: On the Children (Scotland) Act, the money is perhaps not as much as the authorities were requesting. Their analysis of the cost of implementation differs from ours. We included it in the settlement. We have not included anything for the landfill tax because it is a tax that has to be borne by all sectors of government, as it is by all sectors of the economy.

Mr. Gorrie: I am obliged to the Minister for his explanation. I should rephrase my remark about the Children (Scotland) Act. There is a gap of £11 million between what the Government are allowing and what the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and local authorities think is needed.
The settlement is mean because—as with my previous point—there is money in the budget for care in the community but another £12 million at least is needed to cope properly. The Government seem to be refusing to make any allowance for the £36 million needed to top up


pensions. There must be £36 million in the Treasury for that because councils have paid that money in. It must exist and could easily be used. It is a £36 million penalty on councils.
The Secretary of State declined to say whether the £59 million extra on education will continue. The £30 million for spend to save, buildings and other such things is a one-off, but if councils knew that they would continue to get the £59 million, they could use it sensibly by hiring more teachers. Councils will not take on more teachers if the £59 million will disappear next year, forcing them to sack them all again.
The settlement is mean because, for the fifth year running, the Government are allowing nothing for pay awards. Cumulatively over five years, that has cost councils £450 million. There is a myth that that money can be saved by productivity. There are obviously some areas in which councils could improve performance, and they are trying to do that, but in many cases they cannot. The £450 million cut can only mean more job losses. There have been 11,000 in recent years and there will be thousands more this year.
The settlement is destructive because, if allowance is made for the pension money and the specific educational grants are taken out, the increase is only 0.7 per cent., when inflation is much higher than that. The increase in Government money, despite the extra, is only 0.6 per cent. That means considerable cuts. The Government are forcing up the council tax by an average of 7 per cent. and linking it with severe cuts. I accept that the right hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) made play of that while the previous Government did exactly the same, deliberately forcing up council tax to gain credit for reducing income tax. That fact that they did a bad thing is no reason for the Labour party to do a bad thing.
It is destroys people's respect for democracy if councils raise council tax well above inflation and have to inflict devastating cuts. The man or woman in the street does not accept that there is not enough money from Government; they just blame the council and think that the whole system is rubbish. The Government are destroying belief in local democracy.
The Government are destroying our housing by not investing enough. There is a £50 million reduction this year, and again next year, in housing capital. Many of our fellow citizens live in intolerable circumstances. The Government are failing to do things that they could do about that.
To take one council in the middle range of the increases, Edinburgh is trying not to make cuts in school education, police and fire services and, as a result, is having to cut 9 per cent. from all other budgets. That means a 9 per cent. cut in grants to voluntary organisations. The Labour Government are presiding over a massacre of voluntary organisations. The changes in urban aid, the ending of it for some organisations and the reduction in grants to others, mean that many important voluntary organisations—many of which help in deprived areas to do exactly the sort of things that the Government are keen on—are disappearing. The Government are destroying large swathes of the voluntary sector.

Mr. Macdonald: The voluntary sector is an important issue. I acknowledge that the money available for the urban

programme has declined in the past few years. The hon. Gentleman will acknowledge that the funding available for voluntary sector projects was never designed to be long-term; it was to be phased out after three years. That must be so, or the same voluntary sector projects would always get the money. There has to be a transition between phasing out some projects and new ones coming in. We expect that more new ones will come in over the next year than are being phased out.

Mr. Gorrie: Metaphors about pump priming and seed money should be banned. I know that the Minister did not use them, but that was the thought process involved. The idea is that, if a little money is put into something for a few years, it will pay for itself ever after. That is rubbish, and a major cause of problems in our society. He should address that. [Interruption.] If the hon. Member for Glasgow, Pollok (Mr. Davidson) has a solution, he is welcome to intervene.

Mr. Ian Davidson: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that, ever since the beginning of the urban aid programme, some projects have lost funding? It has never been the case that every urban aid project is mainlined by local authorities after losing its urban aid funding. It was a recurrent problem throughout the years of the Conservative Government. Urban aid was intended to provide the opportunity for experimentation which would then allow local authorities to determine whether to make projects mainline or to take the lessons and spread them across the service.

Mr. Gorrie: The difference is that in the past councils had enough money to continue many projects that deserved to be continued with. Now they do not, because of the savage cuts imposed by the Labour Government and the previous Tory Government.
The system is destructive of good management in local government. All hon. Members want local government to be as efficient as possible, as do people in local government. Finance and other important officials spend sixth months of the year preparing budgets, seeking cuts and then implementing them. For half the year, they are not making positive management decisions at all. That is harmful to local government and prevents it from improving.

Mrs. Eleanor Laing: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, if some local government officials stopped doing the work that he described and set their minds to gathering some of the debts owed in the great cities of Scotland, there would be less need for cuts?

Mr. Gorrie: I could not disagree more strongly. The hon. Lady's party imposed an uncollectable tax and then moaned that councils found it difficult to collect. Having been involved in local government, I assure her that councils tried hard, and are continuing to try, to collect it.

Mr. Desmond Swayne: Which one is that?

Mr. Gorrie: The poll tax and the council tax—two taxes.
Why did people vote Labour at the last general election and why did Labour Members who are genuinely honourable and care about society seek election? I do not


think that they sought election—or that people voted for them—to end hot school meals, to cut library books, home helps and road maintenance, to cause major destruction in our community education, to have fewer local government workers delivering worse services, to widen the gap between the richer and poorer areas, to reduce the opportunities available in deprived areas and to deliver the worst local government services known for 23 years.
If we measure back to the start of the regional and district system that is roughly similar to the present system, we find that the level of services proposed in this budget will be the worst ever. The housing budget will be the worst funded. That is not what people voted for and it is not what the honourable people on the Labour Benches stood for. The Government are persisting in a foolish and unnecessary policy—the self-imposed policy of adopting Tory spending plans. They have chosen to wrap themselves in Tory Treasury rules.

Mr. Macdonald: I must set some of the facts straight. It is not the lowest housing budget. We have provided an additional £50 million for housing for the coming year, which we are spending on priority areas such as the rough sleepers and empty homes initiatives and on the new housing partnerships. We acknowledge that the settlement is tight, but the hon. Gentleman greatly exaggerates the position.

Mr. Gorrie: I cannot remember exactly what I said and the Minister is correct in saying that there is a small increase, but it is after two years of severe decreases. What I intended to say but did not, for which I apologise, is that the Government will preside over housing in Scotland being in a worse state than ever because they are providing inadequate money and housing is getting steadily worse.

Mr. Welsh: The hon. Gentleman should stick to his point, as he is correct. An additional £27 million may have been allocated by the Government, but it is against a backcloth of a £484 million deficit in the past two years. It is a vastly reduced housing budget, quite apart from the disaster caused by the 75 per cent. claw back rule, which has taken hundreds of millions of pounds out of Scotland's housing.

Mr. Gorrie: I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman for his excellent support.
The policies of the Conservative Government have been adopted unnecessarily by the Labour Government, who have stuck to the Treasury rules devised by the Conservatives. For example, local authority self-financed expenditure—LASFE—is counted within the control total. If Edinburgh, Aberdeenshire or any other council should decide to raise its tax by £1 million and spend that money locally, some other organisation somewhere else in the public sector in Scotland would have to spend £1 million less. There is no logic behind that: it is idiotic.
If local people vote to pay a little more in tax to have more teachers, better roads or whatever, they should get those. The Labour party is espousing an anti-democratic system that was foisted on us by the Conservatives.
There is widespread support for changing that rule and for not counting LASFE within the control total. There is also widespread support for taking expenditure on housing,

water and drainage and other capital items of that sort out of the public sector borrowing requirement and using another calculation, such as the general Government financial deficit, which would allow them not to be counted. Therefore, much more investment would be possible without rocking the boat financially. Those systems are used by our continental neighbours and if we used them we would approximate more to their systems should we wish to enter the single currency.
Finally, there has been much talk about what we will achieve in a Scottish Parliament. We want to co-operate, be consensual and do good things together. If Labour policy in a Scottish Parliament is to make such cuts in local government, there is no way in which the Liberal Democrats will co-operate with them in those cuts. We will not support cuts of this sort in local government expenditure.

Mr. Andrew Welsh: Even the Secretary of State's undoubted mastery of the understatement and his always impressive powers of euphemism cannot hide the attack that this settlement represents on Scotland's local authorities and the daily services that they provide. Clearly, the new Labour Government are continuing the old Tory policy of cutback and closure and for the same reasons. They are giving the people of Scotland a continuing diet of cuts, closures and job losses in local government. The settlements are a double disaster. They will affect services and, in particular, the housing sector.
Next year, there will be a cash standstill on inherited plans. The capping increase is 0.7 per cent., but inflation is 3.3 per cent. and the capping flexibility is very limited indeed. Council tax will rise dramatically. There have been about 11,000 job losses in the past two years, but those will be multiplied by the new Labour settlement.
In addition to increased charges for local government services and hefty council tax increases, housing will be hit even harder. The present year is the lowest point in decades, and the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Mr. Gorrie) was right: the first two Labour years have brought about a 35 per cent. cut in resources compared with the previous two Tory years.

Mr. Swayne: Does the hon. Gentleman acknowledge that the public sector borrowing requirement has improved significantly—an improvement that the previous Administration did not enjoy but laid the foundations for? It is all very well for him to complain about the continuation of Conservative policy, but the circumstances have changed, as would Tory policies have done, I am sure.

Mr. Welsh: If the hon. Gentleman's wants to justify the misery caused by Tory policies with that explanation, he is welcome to it.
In real terms under the settlement, housing support grant will now be worth 36 times less than it was in 1979. Individuals and families will pay the price for all this in ill health and poor housing—the very things that Labour Members used to argue against when they were in


opposition. In the Scottish Grand Committee, when the Secretary of State announced the importance of
the Government's policy of maintaining a tight control over public expenditure",—[Official Report, Scottish Grand Committee, 3 December 1997; c. 4.]
no one could have predicted the true cost of that pragmatic policy for Scotland's local authorities. They face their most serious financial crisis in memory. Even the most prudent financial authorities are down to the bone and having to consider seriously massive cuts in services. Those will be a direct consequence of central Government policy and will inevitably lead to more cuts in services and jobs and a rise in council taxes.
New Labour is simply continuing to implement Tory spending plans to slash £150 million from Scottish local government services this year—an average cut of 3 per cent. The knock-on effect will be damaging cuts to vital core services. Once again, there will be bad news for council tax payers with an average rise of 7 per cent. to achieve fewer services, because this Government continue to tie the hands of Scotland's local authorities.
The new Labour Government have made no allowance for pay awards, forcing councils to self-finance any pay rise for their employees. For example, a rise of only 2 per cent. will burden local authorities with an additional £75 million without any financial support from central Government. Self-financing public sector pay awards have been a time bomb under local authority services, and that is directly a Tory policy that is being continued by new Labour.
The Government have allowed for a capping increase of only 0.7 per cent. compared with inflation of about 3.3 per cent., which will place a tight limit on local authority budgets. My local council, Angus—a very financially prudent authority by any measurement—has had to face its worst capping restriction. It can spend only 1.12 per cent. above grant-aided expenditure for 1998–99, in comparison with Dundee with 11.48 per cent., Glasgow, 10.88 per cent. and West Dumbartonshire, 10.73 per cent. Does the Minister agree that such wide variations are inequitable and that strenuous efforts should be made to achieve greater flexibility in capping?
The effects of the £300 million cuts can be seen in the devastation of services and the loss of the equivalent of more than 11,000 full-time jobs over the past two years. Already, 760 jobs in Edinburgh and 50 in Stirling have been lost. Aberdeen council is closing residential homes and even considering transferring its housing stock.
Local authorities are dependent on Scottish Office finance, as they have the power to raise only 15 per cent. of their revenue and there is arbitrary capping. Central Government now run local government. Local government does not even control its expanding work load, which is a result of central Government statute. More than 75 per cent. of local authority expenditure is on statutory services that are determined by central Government, who have imposed additional burdens without providing the funds to meet them.
The Convention of Scottish Local Authorities has identified some £180 million of new burdens that central Government have imposed through, for example, care in the community, the Children (Scotland) Act 1995 and the Disability Discrimination Act 1995. The Children

(Scotland) Act is a particularly interesting case study: extra spending of £11 million has been earmarked for next year, but no additional funds have been made available to finance it.

Mrs. Maria Fyfe: The hon. Gentleman will notice that the Children (Scotland) Act was enacted in 1995; it has been in operation for some time. I recollect that the Conservative Government would not make available any extra money for local authorities.
The hon. Gentleman is wrong to say that no money has been allocated this year for the implementation of measures under the Children (Scotland) Act, although I accept that the full £11 million has not been made available—I am not sure what the exact figure is. As the Minister said, this year, unlike in previous years, some money has been made available.

Mr. Welsh: The point is that there are extra burdens on local authorities, which depend on central Government for finance. If that money is not forthcoming, local authorities will have to cut services or sack people. The same problem arises with self-financing pay awards. Local councillors now face horrendous decisions—I am sure that the hon. Lady, with her vast knowledge of local government, knows exactly what I mean—because central Government have imposed burdens but not the money to pay for them.

Mrs. Fyfe: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his generosity in giving way again. He is doing what the Scottish National party always does—it pretends that there is no difference between the Conservative and Labour parties. He heard my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State make it clear that things will be very different in the near future for local authority services and for housing in particular. He cannot pretend that the Labour Government have the same attitude as the previous Government—that is quite dishonest.

Mr. Welsh: I am not pretending anything; the reality is there for everyone to see. I have given many examples of ways in which the new Labour Government are no different from the old Tory Government. There may be a slight difference in emphasis, but the problems that local authorities face because of under-resourcing are the same.
When people voted massively for new Labour at the general election, they expected something better than what the Government are delivering. The hon. Lady and other Labour Members will be answerable to the electorate for the Government's failure to make a difference. The Government have created a deficit in housing, as their cuts are greater than those in the last two years of the Conservative Government. I regret having to say that, but it is the reality.

Mr. Macdonald: Let me settle this question. The money that we inherited for local authority capital investment in housing this year was £222 million—that includes the grant and the money that local authorities have been able to raise—to which we added an additional £15 million. Next year, we are planning to spend £230 million—again, adding together the grant and local authority money—to which we shall add £50.7 million.


It is simply not correct to say that the Government are spending less money on local authority housing this year than was spent last year.

Mr. Welsh: I had the same problem with the former Conservative Secretary of State, who juggled money between budget headings. The truth is that total expenditure on housing during Labour's first two years in government will be one third less than the Tories spent in their last two years in government. The £27 million that the Government are allocating is negligible against the background of the £484 million that was cut over the past two years. That £484 million could have provided 11,000 new houses or insulated homes for 200,000 families, pensioners and other groups at risk. My view is straightforward: I want more money to be allocated to meet Scotland's needs, as Labour Members argued when they were in opposition.

Dr. Fox: In fairness, there are differences between the Labour Government and the former Conservative Government, as I am sure the hon. Gentleman will accept. For example, the tax on pensions—and the £36 million extra that will have to be raised as a result—is the Labour Government's innovation; it did not exist under the Conservatives.

Mr. Welsh: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, as I was about to make that point myself. The major difference between old Tory and new Labour is that the old Tory party is out of office and new Labour is in office.

Mr. Ernie Ross: Old Tory, old SNP.

Mr. Welsh: As the hon. Gentleman comes from Dundee, which has an atrocious local government record, he should have very little to say on this subject.
In the July Budget statement, the Chancellor announced that pension funds would no longer be able to reclaim advance corporation tax credits attaching to dividend income.

Mr. McAllion: Will the hon. Gentleman clarify what he meant by his disgraceful smear against the local authority in Dundee? Dundee has a tremendous record of fighting Tory cuts, which is more than can be said for Angus. Dundee has direct labour organisations, with workers working directly for the council, whereas Angus local authority privatised the whole lot.

Mr. Welsh: If the hon. Gentleman has not got the message, the electorate certainly have. I invite him to discuss these matters with the people of Monifieth, who were never so glad in their lives to escape Dundee local authority with its high council charges and low-quality services, and be put under the control of Angus, where there are low council charges and high-quality services. I well remember the black propaganda that Labour councillors produced about the boundary changes, all of which has been proven totally false. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will encourage the Dundee Labour council to do its job better and provide better services to its people—that would be a better use of his time.
The Government do not want to discuss advance corporation tax, as their proposals will result in an extra bill for local authorities in 1998–99 of some £36 million. Will the Minister meet the additional costs by increasing

the grant, or does he agree that a capping disregard is essential? I hope that he will give some comfort to local councils by announcing, when he winds up the debate, that the Government will offer some assistance.
I welcome the additional £89 million for education this year. I asked the Secretary of State whether additional money would continue to be granted, but because I did not receive much of an answer, I ask again. As the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West said, local authorities will be very wary of taking on long-term commitments unless they secure from central Government long-term agreements on funding.
Local government has become merely an enabling administration rather than a service provider. I know that that subject is dear to the Minister's heart. He made a disgraceful speech in which he said, more or less, that he wanted to destroy local government—perhaps he could amplify those remarks. The Conservative Government wanted local government to become an enabling administration, but I want local authorities to be service providers, which can assess and address the needs of their local populations.
We now have local administration rather than local government—the old cliché is now, sadly, true. They have no scope to raise their own finance, either revenue or capital; and 75 per cent. of their services are statutory and imposed by central Government. That is not local government in a flourishing democracy—it is heavy centralisation. Local authorities should be key players in the provision of top-quality, low-cost and democratically accountable local services. We should be playing to the strengths of local expertise, professional skills and the traditions of local government, not destroying them in this fashion.
Nowhere is the problem more acute than in the provision of desperately needed housing. A new Labour Government means no change from the old Tory Government in terms of housing finance or policy—there may be a little tweaking at the edges, but there is no change in fundamental policy. The recent Scottish housing conditions survey confirmed that Scotland has some of the poorest housing conditions, with high levels of dampness and condensation and poor energy efficiency. In addition, homelessness is spiralling: there were almost half a million homeless applicants between 1979 and 1995, but such applications rose 72 per cent. between 1985 and 1995. I see nothing in the Government's plans that will address or provide redress for that problem.
All that is storing up major problems and misery both for homeless individuals and families in the present and for the whole system in the future. The Minister might argue that there is an additional £29 million allocated for housing this year, but that is a drop in the ocean compared with the £484 million that has been cut from the housing budget in the past two years alone. That could have provided all the new houses or additional insulation that I described. It could have been spent on services to meet real need. New Labour has continued the Tory policy of cutting the housing support grant and it is now a mere £12.7 million. If the grant had kept pace with inflation, it would now be worth £457 million—36 times more than Labour's allocation.
New Labour should be ashamed of itself, and I know plenty of Labour councillors and grass-roots Labour supporters who already are. In the last two years of the


Tory Government, the then Secretary of State for Scotland, Michael Forsyth, implemented an increasing clawback of 75 per cent. of the money raised by councils through council house sales. That measure removed an estimated £170 million from housing capital budgets in 1997–98, which represents around 35 per cent. of last year's housing budget.
The irony is that Labour's manifesto committed a Labour Government to a
review of the newly imposed requirement in relation to the retention of 75 per cent. of housing receipts.
However, the 75 per cent. rule still exists and will continue to deny councils one of the scarce resources available to them to provide capital for investment in housing stock. That is especially worrying given that one in three council houses is still in need of urgent major repair.
That is not scaremongering by the Opposition, but a realistic picture of the current plight facing our local authorities. They will make do with the resources allocated to them, but Scotland's local authorities should not be asked to shoulder the blame for central Government's pursuit of on-going Tory policy. People voted en masse for new Labour last May and they expected a change in policy—a new hope for the future. What they have is new Labour, same old Tories.
Asking more for less is one thing, but asking for the impossible for less is a different matter. The impossible is precisely what local authorities are being asked to do because of the settlement. When will the Labour Government accept that the previous Administration failed to recognise the damage to local government and that that damages the whole Scottish economy? The sooner they realise the potential of local authorities, the better it will be for those who are reliant on services provided by local authorities, which are best placed to assess need and to provide low-cost, high-quality public services in the public good. That is in the finest tradition of local government, but local authorities have to be properly resourced to be able to do it.
We simply cannot wait for the advent of a Scottish Parliament to right all the wrongs of 18 years' mismanagement by the previous Government. The Scottish Parliament offers hope for an improved relationship between central and local government, but we need action now, before the damage becomes permanent and irreversible. Whether the new Parliament will be able to provide extra resources is questionable: the devolved Parliament will suffer as a result of a cut of £1.6 billion from the existing Scottish Office block grant and may well be strapped for cash. The trouble is that the Scottish Parliament will be the paymaster for Scottish local authorities and many of the current problems will persist because of the system of financing whereby both the Scottish Parliament and local authorities will be financed by this Parliament.
New Labour is sowing the seeds of its downfall by sticking to its predecessors' spending plans. Ministers may have faced tough choices, but by saving money for tax cuts and pre-election sweeteners, they are showing their true blue colours and forgetting their roots. What their present boss thinks will suit middle England will not go down well in Scotland and, like their predecessors, this Government's time will come at the ballot box.
New Labour in office means no improvement in the housing-related problems of homelessness, dampness, overcrowding and ill health. Those problems—which, when in opposition, Labour Members talked about and blamed the Tory Government for—still remain and, in some cases, they will worsen under the Labour Government.
Blair's new Government offers nothing new. Their lack of commitment to housing is as great as the Tory failure and their policies are almost indistinguishable from those of the Tories. This year's paltry increase hardly merits the description of window dressing, especially when allied to the continuation of the cuts in the housing support grant. Housing needs exist and are worsening. New Labour should be ashamed of itself, and I know that many of its councillors and grass-roots supports are.

Mr. Ian Davidson: I rise as one who, in the past, has not been a great enthusiast for links with the Liberals having believed that they have led us down many false roads. However, I was greatly heartened by the speech of the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Mr. Gorrie) and his defence of public expenditure and public services. It may well be that, in the Scottish Parliament, the Liberals will find themselves much closer than they expect to the Co-operative party block there.
It would be inappropriate to allow the debate to pass without making it clear that many of us believe that the state of rented housing in Scotland is a disgrace. Far too many of our people live in accommodation that is unsatisfactory, unsanitary and not waterproof or windproof. Concern about this matter is not restricted to Opposition Members; at our surgeries, many Labour Members are inundated by the results of years of underspending. What makes that particularly unpalatable is the way in which, at present, because of the possibility of military action against Iraq, we see all the hi-tech wizardry displayed, while our hi-tech and scientifically advanced society is apparently unable to provide windproof and watertight homes for substantial numbers of our people. Surely there is a mis-spend somewhere?
Why are the problems of so many of our people, who have to live in rented housing, ignored? I believe that it is because few opinion-formers live in rented housing and few of those who live as tenants ever appear in focus groups. The needs of that minority are under-represented in the political dialogue of this country. That is inappropriate and it is up to those of us who represent such people to make sure that their voices are heard on occasions like this.
Today's debate is the first of this sort under the Labour Government and the lack of adverse comment from COSLA and local authorities has been remarked upon. We should not mistake silence for acquiescence—it arises from the gut loyalty felt by Labour local authorities to a Labour Government, after years of Tory Government. I hope that my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Treasury Bench will not abuse that loyalty and will recognise that something has to be delivered relatively soon to local authorities. Loyalty has to be rewarded by jam tomorrow and the sooner we can make commitments about jam tomorrow, the happier I, the vast majority of Labour Members and our supporters, will be.

Sir Robert Smith: Following on from the point that the hon. Member for Glasgow, Pollok (Mr. Davidson) made about jam tomorrow and the reaction of the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, I believe that it is important for the Government to recognise that they should be considering more than the reaction of COSLA. The Government should be considering the reaction of all the parents on school boards; all the parents of children whose schools will be affected by the cuts; all the people in housing suffering from poor repairs; all the people affected by the problems of getting care in the community to work; and all the people facing additional charges for their care in the community. Although COSLA might be co-operating in terms of language, the settlement that the Government are persuading us to accept today will be damaging to individuals.
I repeat what I said in the Scottish Grand Committee. It is welcome to have a Government who at least allow the debate to take place to a certain extent, by recognising that local authorities are in trouble, are facing a financial squeeze and have very tough decisions to take. The real waste of the past two years, after reorganisation, was the farcical situation where central Government tried to pretend that there was no financial problem for local communities to address. If local communities do not know that there is a problem, how can they confront setting priorities and taking decisions within what is a poor or tight settlement? On those points, Liberal Democrat Members have welcomed the Government's more open language.
I tried to intervene on the Secretary of State regarding the capping flexibility announcement. When he replies, will the Minister say how many councils are likely to be able to take advantage of that announcement? There was a sense of deja vu. One felt that, yet again, a Government, on a Friday afternoon, were making an announcement that got one or two headlines about some interesting figures—an announcement which even the Secretary of State did not appear to be interested in debating at any length, and which, when one unteased it, was not of great substance. In any case, it was nearing the time to set budgets again.
I hope that—unless the Minister is planning any great largesse or great change of heart in the Scottish Grand Committee—councils will not be placed in the farcical situation that they were placed in two years ago, when, on the day that they were setting their budget, faxes arrived to say that the Government were changing the capping limit again. Some stability is essential if we are to plan how to spend whatever money is available.
I want to reinforce what my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, West (Mr. Gorrie) and other hon. Members have said about the fact that, although the Government have recognised that reorganisation will not make savings of £40 million, they have not adjusted the figure to take account of that. Although they have recognised that they have introduced a pension tax that imposes a burden of £36 million, they have done nothing to take account of that. Those are the Government's decisions—their recognitions—taken post the previous Government's Budget plans, and the Government must start taking responsibility for them.
I hoped that the Government would have recognised that, although the £40 million is a figure to do with reorganisation, far, far more serious damage than that was

done in the dislocation of services and the confusion and chaos of that reorganisation, affecting sensible budget reduction planning. If local authorities had to cut services and facilities, it would have been far better to have a level playing field in the early years and then warn of the cuts to come. To try to impose cuts on an organisation that is not up and running is not the best way to achieve efficiency savings.
Yesterday, when the Accounts Commission for Scotland held a reception in the House, it conveyed an important message that puts in perspective some of the debates about local authority funding. It emphasised the probity of Scottish local government and the lack of fraud. It is important to remember that, although local government may be a whipping boy in many ways, it is still a major part of the structure of our society, and an important provider of services for our society.
Therefore, it is disappointing that the Government have stuck to the fine print of their manifesto, instead of the principles that were probably more at stake in the electorate's mind at the general election. When the Prime Minister's economic adviser says that there is scope for additional public spending, there is a worry that we are facing damage now that will have to be repaired, instead of surviving this period of the economy in order to expand services later.
The Prime Minister says that we do not want boom-bust economics. Everyone acknowledges the need to inject some stability into our economic finances, but the concept of bust-boom is equally disastrous. As my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, West said, it is pointless for councils to reduce the number of teachers only to have to increase it again. It would be far more efficient and effective if councils could see their way through this period before they build their war chest and take it into the run-up to the next general election.
The right hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) said that eventually this debate would take place in the Scottish Parliament. However, I hope that we do not have a decision like this or a debate under the same ground rules as this one.
The Government are conducting a review, which is to report to the Scottish Parliament, on the relationship between local government and the Scottish Parliament. It seems depressing that the Minister wants to exclude financial arrangements from that review, because, as we have seen today, at the heart of the problems of local government and the setting of priorities is the fact that decisions are being taken, not by the people in the communities, but in this fairly empty Chamber, without a great amount of debate. Local priorities should not be decided in this place; the local communities should decide.
I hope that the Government will recognise that the Scottish Parliament will not want to sit around and decide the spending plans of every community in the country. The point of local democracy is that local people have a say. We argue that they should have a say through proportional representation, so that they elect a council that reflects their community. If they do so, the community should decide its spending priorities and resourcing priorities. The Government must recognise the need to change the system.
We want to vote against the settlement today because we feel that it is inadequate, and to send a warning shot across the Government's bows to say that this is not the way to run local government. We hope that they do not continue this method of setting priorities into the future Parliament.

Mr. Alasdair Morgan: I shall be brief, because I understand that hon. Members are experiencing a magnetic attraction to the polar hubs at Heathrow and Euston. I do not want to address the detail of the figures in the settlement. I should like to spend a little time discussing the philosophy underlying the issue of what a local council's task should be.
The Government say that they are committed to the Tory Budget and the Tory spending plans. I do not agree with them on that, but I accept that that is their position. However, do they accept the Conservative philosophy that underlay the budget that these figures comprise? I refer to the speech made by the Minister at the John Wheatley centre. Referring to the duties of a local council, he said:
it is not the direct provision of services which is fundamental".
He said that councils should become
strategic planners and enablers, rather than being necessarily direct providers of services.
He said that the
days are past when it was necessary for councils to deliver services directly".
How far down that road does the Minister wish to travel? Does he wish to apply that approach to the direct labour organisation in Dundee, of which the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion) is so proud? Does he envisage it happening to education in Scotland?
The Government appear to have accepted that the privatisation of local social services is here to stay in terms of "externalisation", as it is called, of old folk's homes. The Minister seems to have accepted that philosophy with regard to the provision of local authority housing; hardly a local council in the land can build a new house. Is the Minister prepared to draw a line there? Is he prepared to give a commitment tonight that public education in Scotland will not go the way of public housing or public social services? The logic of the budget path that the Government are taking is that public education will go the same way and will be privatised, and that local authorities will be merely enablers.
Lastly, I want to speak briefly about rural schools. The local authority—Dumfries and Galloway—whose area covers my constituency has outstanding proposals to close six rural schools. Earlier this week, the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mrs. Michie) said that Argyll and Bute council proposed to close 11 rural schools. Those proposals are a direct consequence of the local authority funding settlements for the past few years.
It is not good enough for the Government to wash their hands of that and say that local authorities must assess their priorities and take their own decisions accordingly. I emphasise to the Minister that rural schools are in a unique position; they are educationally essential, but they are also socially essential for their communities. There is not another school a bus ride down the road. Those local

communities will wither on the vine if their schools are taken away. Is the Minister prepared to make some special commitment or give some special instruction or guidance to local authorities so that they do not have to close even more rural schools than have already been closed over the past 10 to 15 years?

Dr. Liam Fox: Following the fine example set by the hon. Members for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Sir R. Smith) and for Galloway and Upper Nithsdale (Mr. Morgan), I shall be relatively brief.
Much of the debate has been underpinned by the idea of the Government's tight financial control and the maintenance of the previous Government's spending limits. Several points should be made at the outset. There is value in repaying public debt and maintaining tight monetary and fiscal control. Over recent decades, remarkably great strides have been made which have resulted in falling unemployment, increased investment and rising living standards in Scotland. There are great benefits to be had from the sort of policies that the Government have been willing to accept as conventional economic wisdom.
The debate has a certain "Alice in Wonderland" context. The Secretary of State could not accept the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) that this is the second year of a three-year cycle. It becomes year one, and all things are reassessed in the light of economic circumstances. I wonder whether the Chancellor is overdoing the hair shirt a little. He may want to sleep on bare floorboards to set the Lord Chancellor an example, but there is a £4 billion windfall excess.
Although the Conservatives have always believed—as we have shown—in tight economic control, there is a point to economic growth in public expenditure terms. Public expenditure is bad when it runs out of control and damages the rest of the economy, but it is not bad in itself. [Interruption.] Growth in health expenditure under the Conservatives was far greater than that ever managed under a Labour Government. Economic growth in the 1980s was largely channelled into such things as the NHS, which saw a huge increase in the amount of money available to it.
I do not have a problem with the Government's economic policies, but I do have a problem with what Labour said before 1 May. There is a credibility gap. I find it strange that the Government say that they want to repay public sector debt, which is laudable, but, at the same time, they say that they want to reduce hospital waiting lists, when they are rising, or want to reduce class sizes, when they are making no difference. The Minister for Education and Industry, Scottish Office, has said that there is not enough money from the abolition of the assisted places scheme—which is Labour party policy—to reduce class sizes. Presumably, the money must come from somewhere else, yet, the Government are saying that the money cannot come from somewhere else because there must be real-terms reductions in the Scottish block.
I wonder what the actual settlement is. The Secretary of State told the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities that there will be a real-terms reduction, and that he


understands the value of a tight settlement. He told us that the settlement would be neutral in terms of cash growth. Then he told the House:
The increase in cash terms is 3.4 per cent."—[Official Report, 17 February 1998; Vol. 306, c. 880.]
I know that the Government try to be all things to all men, but there cannot be three different figures for the settlement. Will the Minister tell us exactly what is going on? Is there to be an increase this year, or is the Secretary of State being economical in his terminology? Are we simply seeing an increase in what can be spent, but not an increase in what is available to councils from the Government?
I should like the Minister specifically to turn his attention to two matters. The first is the impact of the pension tax, which has been raised several times in the debate. The Chancellor unveiled in his Budget a £5 billion smash-and-grab raid on pension funds, which has nothing to do with the previous Government. COSLA says that the decision will cost Scottish councils £36 million to maintain the value of pension funds—not to mention the impact on individual taxpayers. In practice, that will cost Edinburgh £3 million extra, putting another £20 on a band D council tax bill.
The hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Mr. Gorrie) referred to Edinburgh's financial management. The Government have made no provision for the impact. It is simply a back-door tax. It cannot be blamed on the previous Government; it is a Labour tax imposed by a Labour Government. I am sad that some Labour Back Benchers, out of a sense of loyalty, sit back and take that.
The second Government-imposed problem will be over wage settlements. Last year, the trade unions and Scottish local authorities agreed to a minimum wage of £4 an hour. The Government said that they would not fund that. Why should they? They were not party to the deal. However, they are about to introduce a minimum wage. We do not yet know its level, but it will impose extra burdens on local government. Will the Government make funds available to local government to compensate for the direct result of their policy? Or will the minimum wage become another tax imposed on both the private sector and local government? The Minister must give us an answer. Simply to say that they have not yet decided the level of the minimum wage will not be good enough in this debate.
I should like to ask the Minister a couple of structural questions. The first refers to Glasgow. Why does Glasgow continue to get such a proportion of the total settlement? We accepted—and accept—that Glasgow faced problems as a result of the disaggregation of the old regions, and transitional relief was provided under the mismatch scheme. That was to give Glasgow time to develop efficient structures, but it has not reformed itself sufficiently. It still has 21 departments when other councils are operating with four or five.
Perhaps the internal warfare in which the Glasgow Labour group is involved has left it too little time to consider the matter. Perhaps the kangaroo courts distract it from what is going on elsewhere. Perhaps the KGB-type actions of the party do not give it time to consider structures. How long will the rest of Scotland have to go on funding Glasgow to the present extent? It is time that its house was put in order.
In reply to my question earlier, the Secretary of State said that the police settlement was not as bad as it looked. No matter how one looks at it, the Government are failing

to provide the police with adequate income. I am sorry that the Secretary of State is not here—[HON. MEMBERS: "Yes he is."] Right on cue, as ever. Despite what he said, on the same funding basis, Scottish chief constables are saying that they are not getting enough money—£11 million when they should be getting £28 million for a cash-standstill budget.

Mr. Wallace: Like the right hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram), the hon. Gentleman has voiced a number of criticisms of the motions. Is he prepared to follow his voice with his vote?

Dr. Fox: I shall come later to how we intend to vote. I urge the hon. and learned Gentleman to be patient just for once.
I want the Minister to answer specifically the following question: which Scottish councils have met their side of the 50:50 police funding deal? That is a question of accountability. The public should know, as they should about the scandal of uncollected taxes. There is £897 million outstanding. The problem is that those who will not pay are being subsidised by law-abiding citizens who are paying. It is all very well for hon. Members to say that such taxes are difficult to collect, but that does not explain the massive discrepancy between the worst and the best collectors. A quarter of the uncollected total is due to Glasgow, and a fifth is due to West Dumbartonshire.
I am interested in the relationship between the local taxation collection scheme grant, which the Secretary of State mentioned, and the percentage of outstanding debt. I think that I am correct in saying that the Secretary of State said that there was a direct relationship between the two, yet I see that Fife has the 18th highest outstanding tax revenue, but receives the fifth biggest grant; West Dumbartonshire has the second highest outstanding tax revenue, but receives the eighth biggest grant; and Argyll and Bute has the fifth highest outstanding tax revenue, but receives only the 14th biggest grant. Will the Minister give us a clear idea of how the relationship is worked out?
This is a disappointing settlement from a disappointing Government. Even in their own terms, they have seemingly gone from one set of principles before 1 May to another after 1 May. I do not find their new principles particularly disappointing, but there is a credibility gap, if not a charge of absolute hypocrisy, which can be laid at Labour's door. When many of Labour's supporters consider what they are being delivered in this settlement compared with what they were promised on 1 May, there will be a good deal of disillusionment. It is only time before that leads to contempt, which is very bad for the political process and all of us who seek political stability in Scotland.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Calum Macdonald): The debate has been useful and it has covered a fair amount of ground. I appreciate that time is pressing, but I shall try to cover as many of the points raised in the debate as I can.
I shall begin with one of the final points of the hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) about local tax collection. I am pleased to say that it has improved considerably since the abolition of the poll tax.


The hon. Gentleman is incorrect to say that a grant was made available last year to encourage collection of local taxes. We are in the first year of such a grant, and it has been made in a way that is broadly in line with those local authorities and those areas in which the problems have arisen. We shall be monitoring the performance of local authorities in increasing tax collection. It is one of the issues that I raise regularly with the representatives of local authorities who come to see me. I stress the importance of having a good tax collection rate.

Mr. Ancram: The Minister has told us that tax collection is improving. Will he confirm that the amount of uncollected tax has increased by £150 million in the past year?

Mr. Macdonald: I said that collection has improved vastly since the abolition of the poll tax. There are still problems with collection of council tax, and that is why we are introducing the scheme to which I have referred. No such grant was available in previous years. A new scheme has been introduced, and we hope that it will have the effect that we are seeking.
The hon. Member for Woodspring asked what criteria had changed in the distribution formula for revenue support grant from last year. He asked also whether there were changes on the basis of representations. The formula that we used for distribution continues to be, as it has always been, subject to extensive consultation with local authorities through COSLA. It would not be right for the Government to introduce changes by fiat. The distribution formula cannot be based on picking and choosing between councils. There must be a collective approach that is the result of co-operation, and that must involve COSLA. Indeed, that is the way in which we have approached the matter.
The most significant changes for the coming year include the phased implementation of the review of social work GAEs, which began in 1996. That implementation has resulted in some considerable changes. The process has been based on co-operation and consensus.
Another important change is the phasing out of the previous Government's allocation of grant-aided expenditure assessment based on the supposed savings as a result of local government reorganisation. As I have said, to go into back years to try to unpick entirely would result in losers as well as winners. I am sure that, on reflection, the hon. Member for Woodspring will agree that that would not be wise.
We are bringing to an end the mismatch support that was introduced at the time of reorganisation. We have introduced new stability arrangements to ensure that any changes that take place are progressive to enable local authorities to cope with them. Such changes will not be introduced suddenly. As I have said, all the changes to which I have referred are being introduced in co-operation with local authorities on the basis of consultation.
The hon. Member for Woodspring asked specifically about Glasgow's share of GAE. That is determined by the formula that is agreed with COSLA. Again, this is always done on the basis of consultation and co-operation. The formula has been in place for many years. The previous Government, of which the hon. Member was a member, submitted to that formula. I find it odd that he should now raise queries and questions about it.
The hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Sir R. Smith) wanted to know how many councils would be able to take up capping flexibility—the additional flexibility that will be introduced from 13 February. That will depend entirely on the decisions of individual councils. A majority of councils could potentially take up the option, but we believe that not all will do so. To take up the option would have an impact on council tax, and not all councils want to go down that road.
The hon. Member for Woodspring asked about the cost of servicing local authority debt and wanted to know whether the cost has increased. The servicing of debt for the coming year will be a bit lower than in the current year—£728 million as opposed to £793 million. That is the result of a change in the system of debt financing. Again, that has been introduced with the co-operation of local authorities and in response to them. Support for loan charges to pay off this debt servicing is 100 per cent. from central Government.
Comments have been made about increased costs for local authorities. I accept what has been said about landfill tax, which is something that everyone is having to bear. The revenue will go into public projects and towards the public good.
As for the Children (Scotland) Act 1995, social work GAE was increased by £24 million for community care. In addition, an extra £15 million was provided in the social work increase. That can be taken account of in terms of additional costs in implementing the Children Act.

Mrs. Ray Michie: Why has the Minister failed to recognise the cost of delivery of services to the islands in Argyll and Bute? Was it not possible for him to make an interim award pending the review of the special line of needs allowance in what is one of the most fragile economic areas throughout Scotland? Indeed, it has one of the lowest gross domestic products.

Mr. Macdonald: I understand the hon. Lady's concerns. As I have said, I cannot by fiat begin to pick and choose between local authorities in deciding which will get more money and which will have money taken from them. The special line of needs allowance must involve consultation with all affected local authorities as well as with other local authorities that are not directly affected. The money is top-sliced from the total sum that is available to local authorities. The issue is being considered with all local authorities through COSLA.
It is true that there has been a decline in housing support grant since 1979. Only three local authorities now receive the grant. However, the grant has largely been replaced by housing benefit, which has mushroomed enormously in the years since. The two factors are to be seen directly linked.
There have been several questions about the reduction in housing expenditure. I shall quickly put the figures on record. The total amount of capital investment available for housing for the current year was £222 million. For next year, £230 million will be available—there will be an increase. On top of that, we have provided an extra £50 million in the current year for new housing partnerships and the empty homes initiative. Another extra £15 million will be available for the same purposes next year.
I understand that rural schools represent an important concern for many Members. The Government make special adjustments in the GAE for rural primary schools. For example, Argyll and Bute gained about £1 million as a result of the rural adjustment.
It has been an extremely useful debate, and one which has covered many important topics. If I have failed to respond to any particular questions, I shall be happy to return to them as soon as I can. I hope that at the very least—

Mr. Ancram: rose—

Mr. Macdonald: It would seem that the right hon. Gentleman wishes to intervene at a late stage in my reply.

Mr. Ancram: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. I intervene because my hon. Friend the Member for Woodspring and I asked about policing and whether the chief constables had asked for £28 million. Are they right in saying that, without that, they will not be able to achieve a standstill? I would be grateful for the Minister's reply.

Mr. Macdonald: Bids are always submitted. An extra £15.8 million was made available for policing this year. That represents a 2.3 per cent. increase. We believe that it is possible to meet the aims of police boards and chief constables with that increase in funding.
I hope that hon. Members will agree that although the settlement is difficult it is fair. We shall try to proceed in an honest and open way in partnership with local authorities. I am grateful that local authorities have responded positively to the settlement.

Question put:—

The House divided: Ayes 241, Noes 29.

Division No. 174]
[6.19 pm


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)


Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)
Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)


Ainger, Nick
Casale, Roger


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Cawsey, Ian


Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)
Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)


Ashton, Joe
Chisholm, Malcolm


Atkins, Charlotte
Church, Ms Judith


Austin, John
Clapham, Michael


Banks, Tony
Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)


Barron, Kevin
Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)


Battle, John
Coaker, Vernon


Bayley, Hugh
Coffey, Ms Ann


Beard, Nigel
Cohen, Harry


Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret
Coleman, Iain


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Colman, Tony


Bermingham, Gerald
Connarty, Michael


Blears, Ms Hazel
Cook, Frank (Stockton N)


Blunkett, Rt Hon David
Corbett, Robin


Boateng, Paul
Corbyn, Jeremy


Bradley, Keith (Withington)
Corston, Ms Jean


Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)
Cranston, Ross


Brinton, Mrs Helen
Cryer, John (Hornchurch)


Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)
Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)


Browne, Desmond
Darling, Rt Hon Alistair


Buck, Ms Karen
Darvill, Keith


Burden, Richard
Davidson, Ian


Butler, Mrs Christine
Dean, Mrs Janet


Byers, Stephen
Denham, John


Caborn, Richard
Dewar, Rt Hon Donald





Dismore, Andrew
McCartney, Ian (Makerfield)


Dowd, Jim
McDonagh, Siobhain


Drew, David
Macdonald, Calum


Drown, Ms Julia
McDonnell, John


Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)
McFall, John


Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)
McGuire, Mrs Anne


Edwards, Huw
McIsaac, Shona


Ennis, Jeff
Mackinlay, Andrew


Fatchett, Derek
McNulty, Tony


Field, Rt Hon Frank
MacShane, Denis


Fisher, Mark
Mactaggart, Fiona


Fitzpatrick, Jim
McWalter, Tony


Follett, Barbara
McWilliam, John


Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)
Marek, Dr John


Foulkes, George
Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)


Fyfe, Maria
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Gardiner, Barry
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Gerrard, Neil
Martlew, Eric


Gibson, Dr Ian
Maxton, John


Gilroy, Mrs Linda
Merron, Gillian


Godman, Norman A
Michael, Alun


Goggins, Paul
Milburn, Alan


Gordon, Mrs Eileen
Miller, Andrew


Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)
Mitchell, Austin


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Moffatt, Laura


Grocott, Bruce
Moran, Ms Margaret


Grogan, John
Morgan, Rhodri (Cardiff W)


Hain, Peter
Morley, Elliot


Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)
Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)


Hall, Patrick (Bedford)
Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)


Hanson, David
Mudie, George


Heal, Mrs Sylvia
Mullin, Chris


Healey, John
Norris, Dan


Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)
O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)


Heppell, John
Olner, Bill


Hesford, Stephen
O'Neill, Martin


Hill, Keith
Palmer, Dr Nick


Hinchliffe, David
Pearson, Ian


Hoon, Geoffrey
Pendry, Tom


Hopkins, Kelvin
Perham, Ms Linda


Howarth, Alan (Newport E)
Pike, Peter L


Howells, Dr Kim
Pollard, Kerry


Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)
Pope, Greg


Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
Pound, Stephen


Hurst, Alan
Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)


Hutton, John
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


Illsley, Eric
Prescott, Rt Hon John


Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)
Purchase, Ken


Jenkins, Brian
Radice, Giles


Johnson, Miss Melanie
Rammell, Bill


(Welwyn Hatfield)
Raynsford, Nick


Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)
Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)


Jones, Ms Jenny
Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)


(Wolverh'ton SW)
Roche, Mrs Barbara


Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)
Rooker, Jeff


Jowell, Ms Tessa
Rooney, Terry


Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Kemp, Fraser
Roy, Frank


Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)
Ruddock, Ms Joan


Kilfoyle, Peter
Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)


King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)
Ryan, Ms Joan


Kumar, Dr Ashok
Salter, Martin


Ladyman, Dr Stephen
Sawford, Phil


Lawrence, Ms Jackie
Sedgemore, Brian


Lepper, David
Sheerman, Barry


Leslie, Christopher
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Levitt, Tom
Shipley, Ms Debra


Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)
Short, Rt Hon Clare


Linton, Martin
Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)


Livingstone, Ken
Skinner, Dennis


Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)
Smith, Angela (Basildon)


Lock, David
Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)


Love, Andrew
Smith, John (Glamorgan)


McAllion, John
Snape, Peter


McAvoy, Thomas
Soley, Clive


McCafferty, Ms Chris
Spellar, John






Squire, Ms Rachel
Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)


Starkey, Dr Phyllis
Vaz, Keith


Stevenson, George
Vis, Dr Rudi


Stewart, Ian (Eccles)
Walley, Ms Joan


Stoate, Dr Howard
Ward, Ms Claire


Stringer, Graham
Wareing, Robert N


Stuart, Ms Gisela
White, Brian


Sutcliffe, Gerry
Whitehead, Dr Alan


Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann
Wicks, Malcolm


(Dewsbury)
Williams, Rt Hon Alan



(Swansea W)


Taylor, David (NW Leics)
Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)


Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)
Woolas, Phil


Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)
Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)


Timms, Stephen
Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)


Tipping, Paddy
Wyatt, Derek


Todd, Mark



Touhig, Don
Tellers for the Ayes:


Trickett, Jon
Mr. Clive Betts and Mr. David Jamieson.


Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)



NOES


Allan, Richard
Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Moore, Michael


Baker, Norman
Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway)


Ballard, Mrs Jackie
Oaten, Mark


Brake, Tom
Öpik, Lembit


Brand, Dr Peter
Rendel, David


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Russell, Bob (Colchester)


Burnett, John
Salmond, Alex



Smith, Sir Robert (WAb'd'ns)


Burstow, Paul
Stunell, Andrew


Campbell, Menzies (NE Fife)
Swinney, John


Chidgey, David
Wallace, James


Cotter, Brian
Willis, Phil


Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)



Keetch, Paul
Tellers for the Noes:


Kennedy, Charles (Ross Skye)
Mr. Donald Gorrie and Mr. Andrew Welsh.


Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert

Question accordingly agreed to.

Resolved,
That the Local Government Finance (Scotland) Order 1998, dated 4th February 1998, a copy of which was laid before this House on 5th February, be approved.

Resolved,
That the Revenue Support Grant (Scotland) Order 1998, dated 4th February 1998, a copy of which was laid before this House on 5th February, be approved.

Resolved,
That the Special Grant Report (98/1) (Scotland): Local Taxation Collection Grant Scheme 1997–99 (HC 530), which was laid before this House on 5th February, be approved.

Resolved,
That the Special Grant Report (98/2) (Scotland): Grant in Aid of Local Authority Revenue Costs and Reinstatement Works at Dunblane Cemetery Resulting from the Dunblane Tragedy (HC 531), which was laid before this House on 5th February, be approved.—[Mr. Pope.]

HOUSING (SCOTLAND)

Resolved,
That the draft Housing Support Grant (Scotland) Variation Order 1998, which was laid before this House on 29th January, be approved.

Resolved,
That the draft Housing Support Grant (Scotland) Order 1998, which was laid before this House on 29th January, be approved.—[Mr. Pope.]

Mr. Wallace: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You will recall that when the Opposition Front-Bench spokesman, the hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox), was replying to the debate, he said that he would say how the official Opposition would vote. In fact, they ignored the usual convention of one's vote following one's voice. Inasmuch as the official Opposition seem incapable of giving such opposition in Scottish debates, would it not be more appropriate if my hon. Friends and I occupied the Opposition Front Bench in future Scottish debates?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): The hon. Gentleman is experienced enough to know that that is not a point of order. Whether or not the hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) was asked to do so, to my hearing no such comment was made.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY COMMITTEE

Mr. John McWilliam: I beg to move,
That Mr. Alan Johnson be discharged from the Trade and Industry Committee and Mr. Lindsay Hoyle be added to the Committee.
We can also discuss the motion relating to the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee.
In view of the late hour, and not wishing to detain the House, I can tell hon. Members that the motions are agreed by all parties on the Committee of Selection.

Question put and agreed to.

Ordered,
That Mr. Alan Johnson be discharged from the Trade and Industry Committee and Mr. Lindsay Hoyle be added to the Committee.

NORTHERN IRELAND AFFAIRS COMMITTEE

Ordered,
That Ms Margaret Moran be discharged from the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee and Mr. Stephen Hesford be added to the Committee.—[Mr. Mc William, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.]

Thames Riverside Development

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Pope.]

Mr. Tony Colman: I assure the House that I do not intend to speak for the next three and a half hours, as I understand that it would be within the rules of the House to do. However, if the subject for debate were the Queen Mary's hospital, a major issue in my constituency, I should do so. I hope that Madam Speaker will allow an Adjournment debate on that subject at an early date.
This is also not a debate about the millennium dome. I support the development of that dome, the structure and the exhibition—as, I believe, do most UK residents—as it is needed to provide for all of us a clear picture of where we have come from and a vision of the country and the world that we can become. It is that sense of vision that is missing from so much of the riverside development on the River Thames.
I do not intend to cover all 127 miles of the River Thames, but I understand that my hon. Friends the Members for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay) and for Battersea (Mr. Linton) will seek to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, with regard to their constituencies. I shall primarily be talking about my own constituency.
Putney has had two major areas of riverside development under planning applications again—I say "again" because they come again and again—in the past six months. The first is what I call the Putney church area, known for the start of the boat race and covering three different land holdings and three different proposals—Brewhouse street, a hotel, restaurant and luxury flat development, turned down by the council and now on appeal to the Minister; the ICL tower, again proposed for restaurants and luxury flats; and the Castle public house which, surprise, surprise, involves further proposals for hotels, luxury flats and a restaurant. They are all in a tiny area and, if built, will tower above Deodar road and neighbouring streets and Putney church. There is no co-ordinated approach. The council is trying to get the three landowners to work together.
The second area is the Wandle delta, part of which is a Shell site abutting the Thames, the planning application for which was called in by the Minister with an inquiry date next June. Wandsworth council has today published an excellent urban design framework for the Wandle delta, which I hope will ensure that all the land between the Arndale centre and the Thames will be dealt with in a co-ordinated way. It is extraordinary that that vision has come six months after the planners decided that they wished to go ahead with the Shell site. The new document which has come forward has a much more co-ordinated and sustainable vision.
From that vision will come a new riverside quarter for London with a range of activities, including the Renue centre for renewable energy, which was the subject of a successful millennium bid, backed by Wandsworth and Merton councils. The councils also announced that new planning guidance will be coming out for the Putney church area.
Developers obviously try it on. Applications are made for inappropriately high, bulky and ugly buildings. Always there seems to be the same mix of expensive flats, restaurants and hotels built hard up to the river with little or no access for the public.
Both the Putney church area and the Wandle delta area have been the subject of intense lobbying from local amenity groups, to which I have listened. They include the Putney society, the Deodar road residents association, the Wandsworth society and many others. I hope that, after those battles, coherent, sustainable and acceptable plans can be agreed. As the Minister has a significant role in the planning applications, I accept that he may not wish to comment on them in any detail, so I intend to deal with the general need for riverside development on the River Thames.
Why are those battles needed? In February 1997, the previous Government issued RPG 2B—strategic planning guidance for the River Thames. It was welcomed on all sides. Among other objectives for the built environment was the need to
secure a special quality for all new development on the river and riverside, appropriate"—
that is important—
to its context and to improve the existing Townscape.
I strongly agree with that.
What has gone wrong? I do not believe that prime responsibility for planning applications should be taken away from local councils—how could I, as a former council leader? Wandsworth council has made strange decisions over the years and I expect that my hon. Friends will point those out. It is for local electors to decide whom they want to take those decisions and, on 7 May, I expect a Labour council to be elected in Wandsworth, which will better understand the needs of local people than the current council has in recent years.
Guidance is needed for the planning framework. Will the Minister therefore respond to the following points? First, may we have a reconstituted Thames working party now, to ensure that the Thames guidance is carried through with all the interests involved? The Greater London Authority, which I very much welcome, will be able to lead on that when it is constituted in 2000, but we cannot wait two years and allow inappropriate development in the meantime. We need to implement the guidance now.
Secondly, can the guidance be addressed to all the key players? At present, it is addressed only to councils, whereas it should be addressed to all the arms of government, the Port of London Authority, private sector interests, the River Thames Society and all the organisations involved with the river, in terms of what happens both on it and on its banks.
Thirdly, can we push for good design? We need a proactive riverside landscape appraisal, particularly from Hammersmith to Tower Bridge, to complement the existing landscape appraisal for the more open area upstream in Richmond. I hear that there are problems upstream, such as the developments proposed by Thames Water for the land opposite Hampton Court.
Fourthly, may we have a commitment to river transport? The guidance promotes that, but it is not in the borough's powers to provide piers or services. The Thames 2000 initiative, led by Judith Mayhew and incorporating London Transport's London River Services Ltd. is excellent, and I commend it to the House. However, the furthest new pier planned upstream is at Millbank, which is excellent for the Government Office for London and, dare I say, for the Labour party, but not


much use for residents upstream. We want piers and services all the way up, specifically at Putney church and the Wandle delta.
Fifthly, as the first London Agenda 21 sub-region, may we have a new unitary development plan based on sustainable development along the River Thames? I strongly commend to the House the new guidance on sustainable development. This would be an excellent area in which to launch it.
In the past 15 years, the Coin street development has shown that it is possible, in the heart of London and on some of the most expensive land in London, to have parks, social housing, workshops, playgrounds and, for those who want it, a Harvey Nichols restaurant at the top of the Oxo tower. However, too much of the Thames waterfront is now planned with a Harvey Nichols clientele in mind. Let us hope that future generations of Londoners will praise us for our foresight in getting it right for all Londoners.

Mr. Martin Linton: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Mr. Colman) for raising the issue of development along the River Thames. I endorse everything that he said about the London borough of Wandsworth. As his neighbour, I can provide some even more dramatic examples of strange planning decisions as we move downstream from the Shell site to my constituency of Battersea.
On paper, Wandsworth has some enlightened policies for the riverside. It has height guidelines of six storeys from Wandsworth bridge to Battersea bridge; nine storeys from Battersea bridge to Albert bridge; and seven storeys as far as Vauxhall. The problem is that, in practice, Wandsworth council ignores its own guidelines. It supported an application from Richard Rogers to build a 20-storey block of flats just a few yards from Battersea's beautiful Georgian parish church, St. Mary's. It was called in, and later approved, by the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) when he was Secretary of State for the Environment.
Wandsworth council now has an application from Sir Norman Foster to build a 20-storey block between Battersea and Albert bridges, where the guideline height is only nine stories. The developer is Li Ka-shing, who contributed generously to the Conservative party's election war chest. We should be told whether any of that money found its way to the Conservative party in Wandsworth. Wandsworth council is about to receive another application from Sir Norman Foster for a development on Gargoyle wharf—better known as the Guinness site and the site of the famous "Land is Ours" occupation—for a 30-storey block where the guideline height is only six storeys.
I have no objection, and I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Putney has none, to having two of the best-known architects in Britain engaged in a competition to see who can design the best or the most beautiful building for the Battersea riverside. However, that competition should be limited to the design of the building and should not be a competition to see who can build the highest building. Battersea is not the city centre, so it would be completely out of place to have 20 or 30-storey buildings along our riverside, just as it would be further upstream in Putney.
The architectural press make it sound as though I am against modern architecture for the sake of it. I am making a point not about styles of architecture but about the height of buildings, their density and the type of housing proposed. The stretch of river between the Albert and Battersea bridges is opposite one of the most elegant riversides in London on the Chelsea side, and we should seek a riverside policy that complements rather than dwarfs the other side.
Battersea needs no more landmarks. It already has one of the biggest in the country—Battersea power station—and Wandsworth council has made a big enough mess of that over the years. It has been lying idle for more than 10 years, but building will finally get under way this year.
We need three policies. First, we need a consistent approach to the riverside, all the way from Putney downstream. Secondly, we need a mixture of housing tenure. Many of the sites that are becoming vacant along the riverside are big enough to accommodate both riverside housing and affordable housing behind it. This is an excellent opportunity. The Government are committed to the principle of affordable housing on large sites and Wandsworth council is committed to it on paper. We must ensure that those opportunities are used because Battersea has a pressing need for affordable housing. Many sons and daughters of people who have lived there for generations are being forced to move out because of the lack of affordable housing.
Thirdly, we need public access to the riverside. For 100 years, the people of Battersea and Putney have lived behind an industrial riverside frontage, which used to provide jobs but most of which has now become redundant. It is giving way to residential development, which provides an opportunity, for the first time in many generations, to give the people of Battersea access to their riverside.
The imaginative treatment of those developments can ensure not only that there is good housing along the riverside but that the people who live behind that housing can enjoy the river, not only through riverside walkways but through parks and open spaces, which can complement imaginative housing developments. Coin street is an example of imaginative use of the riverside to help both local residents and the wider public.
On paper, Wandsworth council is committed to all those principles—public access to the riverside, affordable housing, and height and density guidelines—but in practice it does not implement its guidelines. If it fails to implement its guidelines in future, I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will do that.

Mr. Andrew Mackinlay: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Mr. Colman) for initiating the debate, and associate myself with what he and my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Mr. Linton) said about the preciousness of our River Thames. I hope that, on some occasion during the current Parliament, we will be able to focus on the Thames in more detail, involving all hon. Members with riparian interests—perhaps on a Wednesday morning. The narrow issue raised by the debate, however—the development of the riverside frontage—allows me to make some important comments about my part of the river.
The borough of Thurrock, which I represent along with my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon (Angela Smith), has some 30 km of river frontage. Our local authority area has more tidal Thames frontage than any other. I therefore feel that I have a special responsibility for bringing up a couple of issues that are of immediate interest to those of us who represent areas on the eastern stretch of the Thames—the estuary.
Let me say in passing that there are proposals for substantial development on Rainham marshes. I do not want to trespass—in that Rainham marshes are in the constituencies of other hon. Members—but I should like my hon. Friend the Minister to assure me that the Department is fully cognisant of the sensitive nature of that area, which incorporates sites of special scientific interest. I trust that, in respect of the current proposals—which are being discussed—and future proposals, the Department will be extra sensitive and consider calling in any proposals that are pursued. Ultimately, what happens should be determined by the Minister.
I do not oppose any developments; I am merely saying that the matter has a regional significance, on which those of us who are interested in the Thames estuary feel entitled to comment. Moreover, I believe that my borough has one of the largest number of residential planning permissions in the south-east that have yet to be activated. There are numerous opportunities for residential development along and near to the river in Thurrock alone. That should be borne in mind both in strategic planning for the region and in consideration of whether a trespass on to heritage frontage on other parts of the Thames—or, indeed, on to sites of special scientific interest—should take place. There are enormous opportunities for important residential and industrial development in my area alone.
The matter that really prompted me to speak, however, is of vital and immediate importance. Following my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister's announcement about the difficulties of London and Continental—the company charged by Parliament with developing the channel tunnel rail link—a problem has arisen in my constituency and that of the hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Green), with whom I am collaborating, about blighted properties along the river frontage.
I want the link to be constructed. It is desperately needed for United Kingdom Ltd and all the regions of England. It will cross the Thames in my constituency. Like a bootlace, it runs under the river to the east of the Queen Elizabeth II bridge. It will go through the piers of the bridge in its westward approach to London, and at West Thurrock and Purfleet it will carve through a number of important small and medium businesses. That problem may be reflected elsewhere on the route, but I want to concentrate on these businesses for the moment.
The owners of the businesses were already undergoing a major crisis before the Deputy Prime Minister's announcement. They had built their businesses up; many hundreds of my constituents are employed in them. Now, there are job losses. Orders are being cancelled and orders that would otherwise have been made are not being made because London and Continental has not fulfilled the spirit—if not the letter—of its obligations to agree a strategy for the vacation of the properties. That should include fair compensation in response to claims, the giving of dates for entry and staged payments to allow parallel working at the time of relocation.
As I said, the problem existed before the Deputy Prime Minister's announcement but, as a consequence, it has been compounded. I have seen managers and owners of companies almost in tears at their plight. I realise that my hon. Friend the Minister cannot respond specifically this evening, but I appeal to him to alert the Deputy Prime Minister to the problem and to tell him that the hon. Member for Ashford and I are writing to ask him for an urgent meeting with representatives of the companies. We want the Department to deal with the matter before the Deputy Prime Minister tells the House of his intentions in regard to the rail link.
My hon. Friend will recall that, during the last Parliament, quite properly, he emphasised to me—and to other hon. Members—the importance of regeneration in connection with the millennium project in and around Greenwich. I hope that he is not offended by my reminding him of that. Let me make it clear to him that I am facing the unemployment of not a handful, but hundreds, along my stretch of the Thames. I cannot overstate the importance of immediate intervention by the Minister.
The Department has been tardy in responding to the problems of some of the firms that have been disadvantaged. I hope that my hon. Friend will have an early opportunity to talk to Mr. P. Lancaster of his Department, who appears to have been unable to reply to some of the letters sent to him by distressed companies in Kent and Thurrock.
I think that we take the precious nature of the Thames for granted—both the nature conservation and scientific aspect, especially in the estuary area, and the rich heritage that lies along its banks in London. My hon. Friends are right to take this opportunity to make it clear that they want to pursue the issue—legitimately—during the forthcoming London borough elections and that there are Members of Parliament who wish to defend the Thames.
One of the pities of this Parliament is the absence of Nigel Spearing, a distinguished former hon. Member who took a particular interest in the Thames. He did not stand at the last general election, but I know that he would have made a major contribution to this evening's debate. We miss him, and I hope that some good people may think that he should be a candidate for any new senate of Parliament, if and when it is established. In the meantime, perhaps he should be elevated to another place.

Mr. Jim Fitzpatrick: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Mr. Colman) on securing this debate. I associate myself with the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay), particularly those on my predecessor, Mr. Nigel Spearing. I also support my hon. Friend's comments about the significance of the completion of the channel tunnel rail link. It is important not just to north Kent and Essex, or to London and east London, but to the rest of the United Kingdom. Hon. Members may wish to know that, tomorrow, there is to be a seminar in Birmingham on faster tracks to Europe for the regions of the UK, which supports the campaign for the successful completion of the channel tunnel rail link.
I should like to raise two points: first, river transport, which was one of the subjects of the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Putney and, secondly, riverside


development adjacent to Tower bridge at Hermitage wharf. I wish to bring to the attention of my hon. Friend the Minister the role of a constituent of mine, Mr. Peter Wade, who has been associated with the river all his life. He is an ex-docker and a senior employee at Canary wharf. In one capacity or another, he has been involved in every attempt to develop a river bus service over recent years. As we all know, all those attempts have failed.
Mr. Wade is somewhat sceptical about the potential success of the new river bus services that are about to be initiated. I should be grateful if my hon. Friend offered reassurance by way of information on the analysis that has been conducted and on the potential for the new services, particularly with the arrival of the millennium dome, the increase in tourism in east London, the increased capacity and governmental support to ensure that the new services will be a success.
I understand that the only existing service, which runs between London bridge and Canary wharf, is about to close through lack of support but, obviously, we are moving into a new era with the development of tourism, the millennium dome and docklands becoming the new focus for London. With the support that the Government are committing to river services, I hope that, this time, they will not fail.
My hon. Friend the Member for Putney asked about piers in his part of west of London and beyond; perhaps I may ask my hon. Friend Minister to comment on the prospect of additional piers beyond Canary wharf on the north side of the river, particularly at the new Barrier park, which is being constructed on river banks in Newham, close to the Thames barrier.
The second issue that I wish to raise is the campaign that goes under the title Civilians Remembered. I congratulate the main organiser, Miss Marianne Fredericks, a resident of Wapping, Tower Hamlets and my hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Ms King) on their efforts, building on those of the previous Members of Parliament for the area one of my other predecessors, Ms Mildred Gordon, and the right hon. Peter Shore. They have attempted to create a memorial to the civilian dead of the UK from the second world war.
This is not a backward-looking attempt to view history with some negativism, but an attempt to build on new European relations and European partnerships and to say that we must learn the lessons of history and build for the future. The campaign has been centred on transforming east London's last undeveloped riverside site, close to central London on Hermitage wharf, into a memorial park for future generations to remember the horrors of war and to ensure that we never arrive at that situation again. In Europe, we have, I hope, learnt those lessons and will not be faced with such an horrendous prospect again.
The site was sold to Berkeley Homes for development. Under the previous Administration, there was a public inquiry and the previous Secretary of State for the Environment made an announcement on the subject. It would be wholly unfair for Berkeley Homes to be punished as a result of any changes in Government policy, but it is strongly felt in east London that if the nation can afford to spend some £13 million on the Churchill papers, which, with the greatest respect, very few people will

have the opportunity to see and enjoy, spending between £5 million and £10 million on a piece of land to create a memorial to the 60,000 UK civilians who lost their lives during the second world war—half them in London and half of those in east London—would be a fitting tribute and a lasting memorial. It would be close to tourism centres in east London, benefit future generations of Londoners and add to the capital's attractions in demonstrating the history of recent generations.
I appeal to my hon. Friend to convey to our right hon. and hon. Friends the strength of feeling in east London that time is slipping away. Berkeley Homes is a company that works under normal financial pressures. It is sensitive to the feelings of east Londoners, but it is obviously unable to make a gift of the site to the nation. With the Government demonstrating obligations to east London in attacking poverty, and with the symbolism of docklands and of the dome, £5 million does not seem a great price to pay to demonstrate that we cherish and respect our history and civilians' contribution during the second world war.

Mr. Richard Ottaway: Perhaps I may start with an apology to the hon. Member for Putney (Mr. Colman) for being absent for the first few minutes of his debate; the slightly early Adjournment caught me out when I was over the road.
I share some of Labour Members' more general views about the importance of the river and quality development on it, and the need to use the river as an essential communication link through the heart of the capital. If the proposals for the dome and the planned river improvements to get passengers to it get through, that will go a long way towards achieving that objective, and the aims and ambitions of the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay) will, to a certain degree, be realised.
I shall comment on two of the developments that have been mentioned. The first is the Coin street development. I remind Labour Members that that was developed under a Conservative Government in the teeth of opposition from the local Labour authority. Although they are right to pray it in aid as a development that should be copied, portraying it as a great socialist achievement would be slightly misleading.

Mr. Colman: The hon. Gentleman has perhaps a slightly narrow view of history. It was the Greater London council, then Labour controlled, which felt strongly that land on the riverside should be available for the sort of mixed development, social housing and parks that I have described as a way of forward. It was the Labour GLC, which was so maligned by Conservative Members, that enabled the Coin street development to go forward.

Mr. Ottaway: I do not quarrel with that. Anyone who spends time talking to Ian Tuckett, the manager of the Coin street development, will realise that. All the GLC gave was the site, and that was in the teeth of opposition. All the development—every planning application that was made—was resisted by Labour authorities and it took Conservative Secretaries of State to push it through. I do not want to make a political point about it, other than to say I think that it is folly to portray the development as something that will help the Labour party's cause.
Battersea power station is something that the Labour party should be proud of. The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport was at the launch party for the project. It will create some 8,000 jobs. There will be several residential sites there. It is proceeding without the expenditure of a penny of public money and detailed planning permission will be sought in June. No doubt the Government will have something to say about it.
I have four general observations about the other projects that may have been mentioned in my absence. I have in mind the Brewhouse street development; the Shell site, Point Pleasant; Gargoyle wharf, the former Guinness site; the Montevetro building and Albion wharf. My first observation is on density. They are all high-density developments because of the nature of riverside development, the scale of the river and mixed uses on site. They are also an inevitable consequence of the Government's moves to maximise residential development on brown-field sites.

Mr. Colman: I am amazed that the hon. Gentleman supports the proposed densities. They are two, three and four times the density that is set out in Wandsworth borough council's unitary development plan. How could Wandsworth council's planning committee suddenly decide to approve those plans?

Mr. Ottaway: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman is not listening. I said that the density is due to the nature of a riverside development and to the objective of maximising brown-field sites. The hon. Gentleman should explain why Labour did not oppose the Montevetro high-density site.

Mr. Linton: The Montevetro application was called in by the previous Secretary of State and was approved with the support of the majority party on Wandsworth council. At the public inquiry, Labour opposed the plans. We said that it would set a bad precedent for future riverside development. That is proving to be the case.

Mr. Ottaway: I am speaking on the basis of advice that was given to me in anticipation of the debate. I understand that the hon. Member for Battersea (Mr. Linton), who was very vocal on Albion wharf, made no representations at all about the Montevetro building. I am happy to give way to him if he wishes to correct the record.

Mr. Linton: One of my council colleagues spoke at the public inquiry. At the time I was not a member of the local authority and did not have comparable standing to give evidence.

Mr. Ottaway: The record is now straight: the hon. Gentleman did not object to the development.
Design is a subjective matter. The Putney scheme was thrown out largely because everyone agreed that it was unimaginative. The Battersea schemes by Rogers and Foster give rise to competing claims. In general, the involvement of the big names must be good for the area. The quality of the schemes compares favourably with the nondescript canyon effect that is caused by the new blocks on the Fulham side around Wandsworth bridge. The so-called canyon effect is even worse in the docklands stretch.
My third point relates to social housing. It seems that Labour's enthusiasm for social housing in Wandsworth is rather muted. It is unwilling to risk upsetting neighbours to such developments who will resist new council estates on their doorsteps. The council's position is that it has no need to force developers to put social housing on named individual sites when across the borough some 40 per cent. of all new homes over the past 10 years have been affordable. Putting shackles on developers can lead to blight and to sites remaining undeveloped.
My fourth point relates to vision. It is easy to say that the sites are being developed in isolation, but each will have been the subject of detailed planning briefs that were approved only after extensive local consultation. In each case the developer was working to produce a viable scheme that meets the brief as far as possible. I have tried to make the point that there are two sides to every argument and that, by and large, the people of Wandsworth are going along with the schemes. It ill behoves the Labour party to try to make too much political mileage out of this issue in the run-up to the London borough elections, which I am sure is its objective.

The Minister for London and Construction (Mr. Nick Raynsford): I welcome this timely opportunity to discuss some important issues on development along the Thames. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Mr. Colman) on securing the debate and on his prescience in securing it at a time that made it possible for debate to continue beyond the normal 30 minutes. Despite his fairly short time in the House, he obviously has a well-developed sense of the parliamentary timetable.
There were also interesting contributions by my hon. Friends the Members for Battersea (Mr. Linton), for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay) and for Poplar and Canning Town (Mr. Fitzpatrick) and by the hon. Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Ottaway).
Propriety prevents me from commenting specifically on individual planning cases. Some of the proposed developments that have been mentioned are before the Secretary of State for decision or could be called in for his decision or referred to him on appeal. For that reason, it would be inappropriate for me to comment on them. I shall confine my response to matters of general policy and principles.
Nevertheless, I hope that I can reassure hon. Members that each case will be considered on its merits against those principles—in particular the principles that are set down in the Secretary of State's strategic planning guidance for the Thames. It was issued in February last year and sets the planning policy framework against which boroughs are to draw up their unitary development plans and exercise their development control functions.
The fact that it became necessary to issue such guidance and the concerns that generated this debate are in many ways an encouraging sign. All along the Thames, from Brentford and Battersea down to Beckton and Erith, and further down river to Thurrock and beyond, land and buildings that have lain derelict and unused for decades are being brought back into use. London is beginning to rediscover the Thames. A once-neglected asset is now assuming a key role at the heart of the capital's regeneration. People are increasingly showing that they want to live, work and play along the banks of the river, although, not long ago, they turned their backs on it.
The renewed interest in the Thames creates potential conflicts. The river is valued as an open space running through the heart of London and as an important ecological resource. It is a place of recreation—for walking, sight-seeing and quiet enjoyment as well as for some water-based activities. It is also an important and still under-utilised transport artery for goods and people, and it is becoming an increasingly attractive setting for new homes, offices, hotels and places of entertainment. All those uses are important and all have their place, but sometimes, inevitably, they are not mutually compatible. The challenge for the planning system and for those who operate it is to reconcile the conflicts in ways that best meet Londoners' needs and aspirations.
We have heard particular concerns about the scale and quality of some new development proposals, especially for housing. I have in mind the contributions of my hon. Friends the Members for Putney and for Battersea. I reiterate what the Government's strategic planning guidance for the Thames says on those points. For the Thames policy area, which roughly equates to the whole of the riverside within London, the guidance recognises the particular importance and sensitivity of Thameside locations. A commitment to good design is essential, and achieving a special quality of development should be the aim of all concerned.
The guidance clearly states that the appearance of new development and its relationship to its surroundings are important planning considerations. It requires developers to take careful account of the local context and pay particular attention to quality and urban design, and demonstrate that they have done so—by, among other means, the preparation of design statements. They should consult widely with local communities on both sides of the river, with amenity groups and with expert bodies such as the London Planning Advisory Committee, English Heritage and the Royal Fine Arts Commission. One cannot, of course, be over-prescriptive, especially for a river whose character changes so quickly and so radically from stretch to stretch. That is why so much of the emphasis in the guidance is on context and on the relationship of the buildings and developments to their surroundings.
The guidance lays down some specific guidelines in certain areas. Development should address the river as a frontage and should establish and reflect a relationship with the river itself. Views and access to the river should be opened up. Developments should not be so dense that they close off any opportunity for access to the river for people living behind the immediate river area. Scale, height, density and materials should all be appropriate to the local context, and close attention should be paid to landscaping, open spaces, street furniture and lighting.
The guidance should not become a recipe for blandness or uniformity. It recognises that there is a place for challenging designs and for variations in scale and height. It acknowledges that the emphasis on context may be less appropriate in areas that are recognised as rundown and in need of improvement and where there are plans for the upgrading of the local environment. Dramatic visual statements and landmark buildings may be appropriate in exceptional cases, but should be of the highest quality.
An excellent example of the new emphasis on quality and of the potential for bringing life back to a long-neglected riverside locations is the new millennium village in my constituency of Greenwich. My right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister announced yesterday the outcome of the competition for the exciting new urban village to be built on the site, and he unveiled the ambitious and highly innovative proposals from the winning consortium, the Greenwich millennium team. Such schemes are contributing to the renaissance of the Thames, which in turn is an important part of the renaissance of London itself. Developments that make provision for new houses providing for a range of tenures, including affordable housing, new jobs and a high-quality urban environment, will increasingly attract people back to the river and bring people back to the heart of our capital.
In some cases, relatively high densities may be appropriate. Research by my Department has shown that that can be achieved through careful design without the loss of amenity, especially where there is good access to public transport. The re-use of previously developed land in that way can secure the dual benefit of urban regeneration and protection of the countryside. However—I must stress this—it is vital to protect amenity and environmental quality, not only for the sake of local communities but for London's long-term future.
Over-exploitation of the current commercial interest in development along the river would amount to killing the goose that may lay the golden egg. Sustainable development must have regard to environmental quality, to future needs and to the broad range of functions that the river serves for Londoners. It must respect the needs of all sections of the community, including those looking for affordable housing, rather than simply catering for those with high incomes who can afford and are looking for luxury pieds-a-terre.
Restoring vitality to the riverside is a key objective. Uses should contribute to making the riverside an attractive, interesting and safe environment, with public uses predominating on the lower floors. Development that neither contributes to, nor is appropriate for, a riverside location—I am thinking particularly of car parking—is to be discouraged. Public access should be protected and enhanced. The creation of pedestrian routes, including new sections of the river walk, public squares and open spaces should be a feature of all new development wherever possible. New opportunities for water-based transport and recreational facilities should also be created where appropriate, including piers, moorings and access points.
In that connection—at least three of the hon. Members who contributed to the debate mentioned this—I am pleased to note that a number of recent development proposals have incorporated new passenger piers. As hon. Members may be aware, my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister launched an initiative aimed at bringing passenger transport back to the Thames by the year 2000.
Capitalising on the opportunities offered by the millennium experience at Greenwich, the aim is to establish a lasting legacy of new piers and river bus services which will realise the potential contribution the Thames can make to taking traffic off London's streets. A new company, London River Services, has been set up by London Transport to take that forward. I hope that we will be in a position to make an announcement on the


detailed arrangements for that in the reasonably near future. I hope also that as many new developments as possible can be linked into the new services through the provision of new or refurbished piers.

Mr. Colman: Will my hon. Friend comment on the need to have piers and services upstream from Millbank? It seems absurd that the idea should exclude the possibility of having piers upstream from Millbank at Battersea and Fulham.

Mr. Raynsford: That is a perfectly valid point, which my hon. Friend made in his speech. I was about to come to that. He is rightly concerned about the river upstream from Westminster and Millbank.
It is our objective to achieve a river bus service that provides the greatest possible coverage, compatible with commercial viability in the long term. Clearly, there are limitations. It would be inappropriate to try to run a service that extended over too large an area and which simply could not meet the costs of maintenance. Equally, a service that is too narrowly restricted to the central areas would fail to achieve the potential for providing a river bus service that genuinely provides opportunities for people from many parts of London to use this grossly under-used artery. We have to take into account those considerations. I am conscious of the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Putney, and we will pay attention to them before reaching decisions.
The Government's strategic planning guidance cannot in itself guarantee appropriate and high quality development along the river. Much of the onus is on the local planning authorities, to which that guidance is addressed, to adopt appropriate policies and to reflect them in their unitary development plans and their everyday planning decisions. Some riparian boroughs are making good progress in adapting their policies to the new guidance and to the increasingly pressing need to balance competing pressures along the river. Others have been slower to do so. I should like to use this opportunity to urge all riparian boroughs that have not yet done so to review their planning policies with respect to the river and, where necessary, bring them into line with the strategic guidance.
My hon. Friend the Member for Putney asked about enforcement of the guidance. The Secretary of State will be mindful of that when dealing with any matters that come to him on appeal or which might be felt appropriate for call-in. That will be very much in the mind of my right hon. Friend when considering matters of more than local significance in relation to his planning powers.
Post-2000, we expect to have a new strategic authority in place with a mayor and assembly. We would expect the mayor to be taking an important initiative in relation to the overall planning framework that will be operating within the London area. I hope to say more about that when we launch the White Paper setting out the Government's proposals on that matter.
The strategic guidance, which is already in place and to which we wish to see all authorities adhere, asks authorities to prepare detailed appraisals of their stretches of the river, where appropriate in collaboration with neighbouring boroughs, and to produce design briefs for important development sites.
My hon. Friend asked why the guidance was not addressed to other key players. The point is that it is addressed to the planning authorities because it is their

responsibility to translate it into unitary development plans. Every other player who is interested in development has a natural interest in understanding the planning framework. I should make it clear that planning guidance is not narrowly addressed to the local authorities, but is addressed to all those with an interest in the Thames and how it is developed.
The advent of the new Greater London authority will give added impetus to the development of a strategic approach to the Thames. The White Paper that we shall issue next month will set out a role for the new authority in strategic planning in the capital. I am certain that the further development of policies to protect and enhance one of London's most important strategic assets will be high on the list of priorities of any new mayor.
My hon. Friend mentioned sustainable development. As he acknowledged, the Government have recently issued a consultation paper on the principles of sustainable development. We aim to ensure that they underpin planning policies for the Thames and more widely. The new mayor for London will doubtless consider the principles of strategic and sustainable development as part of his remit.
My hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock mentioned the channel tunnel rail link and the properties in his constituency that may be blighted. My right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister made it clear in his recent statement to the House that, during the 30-day period, London and Continental Railways has the option to come forward with alternative proposals to carry forward its scheme. It would be inappropriate to make a statement during that time about any alternative option. I assure my hon. Friend that the Deputy Prime Minister is giving the most urgent attention to that very important issue. I am sure that he will read my hon. Friend's comments with care.

Mr. Mackinlay: I welcome what my hon. Friend has said. I am anxious that he should reassure us that there will be a focus in the Department not just on whether London and Continental can proceed with the scheme or other options should be examined, but on the immediate need—whether LCR, the Government or another company pick up the project—for some alleviation of the crisis that is faced by the companies that have suffered because of LCR's tardy approach before it went to see the Prime Minister. They have almost been teased by London and Continental Railways. It is demonstrably unfair. Some assessment of their problems is necessary, whatever the outcome of the 30-day period.

Mr. Raynsford: Until the 30-day period is over, it would be inappropriate for me or any other Minister to make a specific comment on the London and Continental scheme. However, I stress to my hon. Friend that one of the purposes of the integration of transport with the environment in the new Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions is to ensure a wider policy-making framework that takes heed of the issues that he has rightly alluded to—the impact of transport schemes on the environment, on businesses and on the lives of individuals. That is almost always in our minds.
My hon. Friend the Member for Poplar and Canning Town mentioned the important campaign to honour the civilians from London and other parts of Britain who lost


their lives during the last war, particularly the victims of the blitz. That campaign has aroused extensive sympathy among the people of London and elsewhere in Britain. I am afraid that I cannot comment on specific proposals for the site of a memorial or on the alternative proposal that has been put forward by the developer of the site that my hon. Friend mentioned. That is currently subject to a view from the Department. It would be inappropriate for me to make any additional comment.
The hon. Member for Croydon, South referred to the Coin street site, with which I am familiar. I gave evidence on behalf of the Coin street action group in the early stages of the campaign to ensure that the site was available for community uses rather than simply being allocated for a bland and extensive commercial development, as was originally proposed. My hon. Friend the Member for Battersea rightly said that the Greater London council supported the fight. It made the land available for the development and provided material and moral support to enable the campaign to proceed.
Having given evidence at two public inquiries to ensure that the scheme that has emerged should proceed, I am delighted about the successful outcome. I pay tribute to the foresight of the former GLC, the energy of the local community and the many individuals who made up that group, including Ian Tackett, to whom the hon. Member for Croydon, South referred. We can all learn lessons from that example of a community proving that it can achieve its objectives against what

initially appeared to be impossible odds. It is an inspiring case study from which many people will gain encouragement and learn lessons about how to ensure that development responds to the needs of communities and creates an environment of which all sections of the community can feel proud.
The hon. Gentleman made several observations about matters relating to the height and density of developments, design and the importance of social housing. The Government are mindful of those issues and want to ensure that, in our approach to planning decisions relating to the Thames—our capital city's greatest natural asset—we always bear in mind the fact that we are custodians of a long and rich heritage and that the effects of our decisions will last for many generations. It is vital that we get those decisions right. That is why the Government are committed to a planning framework that puts the emphasis on quality, design and accessibility, ensuring that we bring vitality back to the River Thames and the heart of our capital city. We live in exciting times. Those objectives can be achieved.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Putney for giving me the opportunity, in responding to the many points that he and other hon. Members have made, to emphasise the Government's commitment to ensuring that developments along our River Thames create a city of which all of us can feel duly proud in the 21st century.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-two minutes to Eight o'clock.